Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterswvnd

388 results

1.18s

  • Sargis v. Barnett

    287 F. Supp. 835 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 1, 1968

    Thus, in providing that the Court should consider claims which, but for the state’s constitutional immunity, “could be maintained in the regular courts of the State” the legislature has clearly implied that the Court is to … Thus, by parity of reasoning, since the State of West Virginia, but for its immunity from suit, would have been jointly and severally liable with the defendant in this action under the doctrine of respondeat superior and

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Greene v. Feaster

    District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 16, 2017

    “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Courts must consider two steps in determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 232.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Flesher v. United States

    238 F. Supp. 119 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jan 19, 1965

    Quite clearly the greatest limitation on plaintiff's power to dispose or appoint is the beneficial interest of the son in the trust income and coipus. … Also the discussion earlier in this opinion concerning plaintiff’s power of appointment over the entire corpus of the trust or a “specific portion” thereof establishes that the trust or any part of it does not comply with

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Ford v. The County Commission of Marion County

    District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Apr 8, 2021

    Thus, for purposes of qualified immunity analysis, it is clearly established that using deadly force in such a situation is unlawful. … It is clearly established that, via Tennessee v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Bohrer v. City Hospital, Inc.

    681 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jan 7, 2010

    The FSHCAA which was legislatively enacted in 1992, was clearly established by the 2000 to 2003 time frame. There has never been a requirement that the Government provide notice of federal employees’ status. … There is no Government regulation or policy issuance that establishes such a duty.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Dotson v. Elite Oil Field Services, Inc.

    91 F. Supp. 3d 865 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Mar 4, 2015

    Deliberate Intention The West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act generally provides broad immunity to qualifying employers against employees’ tort actions. See W. Va.Code § 23-2-6. … It is well-established, however, that a loss of consortium claim is derivative of the deliberate intention claim, and cannot be independently asserted. Evans v.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Estep v. Chemetals Corp.

    580 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jan 3, 1984

    The defendant’s witnesses are far more experienced, knowledgeable and highly qualified than plaintiff’s witnesses, which must be taken into consideration, but the Court also recognizes the fact that these witnesses could … immunity bar must be undertaken with a knowledge and an appreciation of the high degree of risk of physical harm to another created thereby.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Zirkle v. Weinberger

    401 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Oct 16, 1975

    Thus, the Court is in agreement with the Secretary’s conclusion that plaintiff can not qualify under the interim adjudicatory rules. The failure of a miner to qualify under the interim presumption in 20 C.F. … In conjunction with this section there are set out certain medical criteria which, if met, will qualify plaintiff to a finding of total disability due to pneumoconiosis.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Nestor v. Antolini

    District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Sep 22, 2021

    The R&R also found that Plaintiffs’ claims against Antolini, Armstrong, and Poier are subject to qualified immunity because each of these Defendants were performing discretionary functions … Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants are not entitled to judicial immunity, statutory immunity, or qualified immunity [Dkt. No. 3-10].

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Rypkema v. Bowers

    66 F.R.D. 564 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Dec 18, 1974

    . *566 At the outset, it must be noted that cross motions for Summary Judgment alone do not as such establish that either of the movants is entitled to relief. … immunity.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • United States v. Consolidation Coal Company

    354 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jan 11, 1973

    Although Republic Steel concerned Section 10 of the Refuse Act and Wyandotte involved the remedies available for a violation of Section 15, both cases clearly favored injunctive relief. … President, I take this time for the purpose of establishing a legislative history.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Burdette v. Aldi Inc.

    District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Sep 11, 2023

    Because Burdette failed to establish she is a member of a protected class, i.e., a qualified individual with a disability, her discrimination claim fails. … result [from] employment,” and, therefore, it would fall under the immunity provision. Id. There are exceptions to employer immunity, but the exceptions are narrow. Id.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Clay v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co.

    955 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jul 3, 2013

    The plaintiff indicates that the statement that he “was passed over for a promotion due to [the assistant mine superintendent’s] actions when other, less qualified white employees were promoted” supports the proposition that … Due to this Court dismissing the claim based on the intracorporate immunity defense, however, it need not address this argument.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Kidd v. Bradley

    578 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jan 17, 1984

    Inasmuch as the evidence in the case at bar clearly establishes that the Plaintiff is only complaining of these Defendants’ random and unauthorized deprivation of his property rights, the Court need only determine whether … The sovereign immunity of the State of West Virginia would not bar a common law action against these Defendants, since the Plaintiff is only complaining of their random and unauthorized acts which arc only attributable to

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Monongahela Power Co. v. Reilly

    795 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jun 3, 1992

    Owners and operators of affected units may petition the EPA for a two-year extension of the Phase I deadline if qualifying Phase I scrubber technology is utilized. 5 42 U.S.C. *792 § 7651c(d). … In addition, the harm being caused by the EPA cannot be remedied by damages, as sovereign immunity protects the defendant. The likelihood of harm to the defendant, on the other hand, is slight.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • West Virginia University Board of Governors Ex Rel. West Virginia University v. Rodriguez

    543 F. Supp. 2d 526 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Feb 11, 2008

    and thus are immune from suit in federal court.” … State law clearly defines the University as an arm of the state.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Held v. Monongalia Emergency Medical Services, Inc.

    District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Sep 17, 2024

    determined to qualify for immunity” under Chapter 16, Article 47. … Clearly, they had probable cause to arrest him. See W. Va.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Stanley v. United States

    321 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jun 18, 2004

    III.Analysis The FTCA operates as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for injury or loss caused by the negligent or wrongful act of a government employee acting within the scope of his or her employment. Medina v. … Stanley argues that the Court should disregard this precedent and instead follow what he characterizes as a contrary rule established in Poindexter v. Bonsukan, 145 F.Supp.2d 800 (E.D.Tex.2001).

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Insurance Co. of North America v. National Steel Service Center, Inc.

    391 F. Supp. 512 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Mar 12, 1975

    To this general rule there exists onerT well-established exception. … INA’s actions clearly implied a waiver of the workmen’s compensation condition in the general liability policy and indicated to the insured that any recovery in the Fair case would be insured against.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Ballock v. Costlow

    District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Dec 20, 2019

    Qualified Immunity Alternatively, Kief contends that he has not violated any clearly established law and is therefore qualifiedly immune from suit under … Thus, qualified immunity applies so long as Kief did not violate any of Ballock’s clearly established constitutional rights.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.