CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Supreme Court Chief Justice Elliott “Spike” Maynard’s decision to step aside in an appeal involving Massey Energy Co. may not end the furor sparked by photos of his 2006 Riviera rendezvous with the coal company’s top executive.

Maynard stepped aside in a case involving a $76.3 million judgment that was overturned in Massey’s favor. The court has been asked to reconsider without Maynard. But Massey, the nation’s fourth-largest coal company by revenue, is involved in other cases that seem destined for West Virginia’s sole appellate court as well.

Among them is a $239 million judgment won by Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Co. last year.

Separately, Maynard is running for re-election this year and at least one Democratic primary opponent has already raised questions about his Monaco meet-up with Massey Chief Executive Don Blankenship.

Menis Ketchum, a Huntington lawyer, told The Herald-Dispatch newspaper that the appearance of impropriety “threatens the integrity of the West Virginia judicial system.”

Also, Maynard has promised to release “receipts and records” some time this week to answer allegations that Blankenship subsidized his July 2006 jaunt to Europe.

Those allegations, and the 2006 trip, could still fuel complaints with one or both of two relevant state watchdog agencies, the Ethics Commission and the Judicial Investigation Commission.

Those filings may come from Harman Mining Co. or its president, Hugh Caperton. They had won the $76.3 million judgment against Massey, want the reversal reconsidered and pressed Maynard to quit the case.

“We’re considering those options as well as other options, quite frankly,” Bruce Stanley, a lawyer for Caperton, said last week.

Some of Maynard’s defenders, meanwhile, have responded to his recusal by demanding scrutiny of others on the high court. Their targets include Justice Larry Starcher, a vocal critic of Massey and Blankenship.

Starcher dissented in the 3-2 case. He has also at least twice rejected Massey requests for his recusal. A lawyer for the company has not ruled out renewing that effort because of Maynard’s disqualification.

The tumult could even spill into the Legislature. Nearly two weeks into their 60-day regular session, lawmakers are already considering bills to change the state’s method of picking its judicial officers through partisan elections.

Maynard did not mention Blankenship, Massey or other pending cases involving either when he agreed to recuse himself. He instead maintained in his Friday reply that “I have been and would be fair and impartial in this case. I know that of a certainty.”

Maynard agreed to disqualify himself, he wrote, because “the mere appearance of impropriety, regardless of whether it is supported by fact, can compromise the public confidence in the courts.”

Maynard also directed staff Friday to provide details from other cases in which, he said, he has ruled against Massey.

Of those cases, five were petitions for appeal. Maynard voted with the majority to refuse four of them, letting stand damage awards against Massey subsidiaries in each. The fifth has been accepted for arguments, with Maynard again voting in the majority.

A sixth case cited resulted in a 2006 opinion written by Maynard. Though directed at the liability of a roof bolt maker, a Friday Supreme Court press release said it allows “lawsuits against Massey and other coal companies to go forward in circuit court.”

A review by The Associated Press had earlier found eight cases directly involving Massey that have resulted in written opinions since Maynard joined the Supreme Court in 1997. Maynard appeared to side with Massey in all eight, including four in which he dissented from the court’s ruling.

Through a spokeswoman, Maynard disagreed that one of those rulings favored Massey in a 2004 case stemming from pending class-action flood lawsuits.

The ruling allowed the lawsuits to proceed. But lawyers for Massey and other defendants had hailed it for sharply curtailing their exposure to liability.

Maynard wrote the opinion in that case —— but only after rejecting a recusal request that invoked his friendship with Blankenship.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in that case cited how Maynard was spotted having dinner with Blankenship while the flood case was pending before the court.

“I believe the fact that I know Mr. Blankenship socially is insufficient to disqualify me in the flood litigation or to cause my impartiality to reasonably be questioned,” Maynard wrote in his response.

He added that it is “an inescapable fact of life that justices will have associations and friendships with parties coming before this Court.”

———

Lawrence Messina covers the statehouse for The Associated Press.