Case law

Kelly v. West Virginia Regional Jail Correctional Facility Authority

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 29, 2019

Code, 29–12A–1 et seq. is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable … Therefore, no immunity exists where “State actors violate clearly established rights while acting within the scope of their authority and/or employment.” Id.

Whittaker v. Dove

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Nov 3, 2022

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for money damages so long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … established at the time of the alleged violation, Defendant Dove is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's § 1983 claim.

Murray v. Rubenstein

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 26, 2017

Count One: Qualified Immunity Next, the defendants argue that the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for money damages so long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Klug v. Marshall University Board of Governors

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 27, 2019

violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.”). … Therefore, Plaintiff argues qualified immunity does not protect Defendant Mozaffari because his actions violated clearly established statutory and constitutional rights. Upon review, the Court agrees with Plaintiff.

Copen

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 26, 2026

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged a clearly established due process violation against Lanier, and he is entitled to qualified immunity and judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s due process claim.

Sulesky v. United States

545 F. Supp. 426 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 12, 1982

The Plaintiff, Kathryn Sulesky, received the swine flu immunization shot on October 22, 1976. 2. … Robert Waldman were qualified to testify upon the issue of the causal relationship between the swine flu shot and Mrs. Sulesky’s GBS. 5. The swine flu shot which was administered to Mrs.

Hammitt v. Stump

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 25, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense intended to shield public officials from civil suits arising out of their performance of job-related duties … Courts are advised to “ask first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Id.

DD Oil Co v. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 19, 2025

Qualified immunity protects public officials “from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Second, the contours of that are also clearly established.

Reeves v. Meddings

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 4, 2022

violation was of clearly established law), or an ostensibly fact-bound issue that may be resolved as a matter of law (such as whether facts that are undisputed or viewed in a particular light are material to the immunity … The action is STAYED pending the Fourth Circuit’s resolution of the issue of qualified immunity.

Marcum v. Bailey

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 9, 2020

DISCUSSION The Defendant WVDOC argues that it is entitled to qualified immunity from state law claims because no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights were violated. … Qualified Immunity To determine whether a state or its agencies are entitled to qualified immunity, the West Virginia Supreme Court has established a two-part test.1 First,

Gold v. Joyce

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jun 24, 2021

Next, Defendants argue that, alternatively, they are entitled to qualified immunity as they did not violate any of Gold’s “clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.” … Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, as they did not violate any of Gold’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights in their

Tolliver v. City of Dunbar

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Nov 1, 2021

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their … Clearly Established “To prove that a clearly established right has been infringed upon, a plaintiff . . . must make a ‘particularized showing’ that a ‘reasonable official

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Board of Public Works

997 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 25, 1997

Although by its terms the Amendment applies only to suits brought against a state by ‘Citizens of another State,’ it is well established that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own … While Plaintiffs disagree, school funding is clearly a joint effort of the county boards of education and the State. W.Va.Code § 18-9A-1.

Addington v. Blake

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 20, 2019

a clearly established 4 law or constitutional duty.” … Therefore, in determining whether qualified immunity applies, the principal inquiry is whether a public official’s conduct “violate[s] clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known” or is “fraudulent

Marcum v. Bailey

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 23, 2020

The Defendant also argues that it is entitled to qualified immunity from state law claims because no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights were violated. … The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because the actions clearly violated his constitutional rights and Defendant Bailey would have known that his conduct was a violation of the

McCoy v. Ferguson

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 3, 2022

In addition, the Court found qualified immunity applied. … Moreover, in any event, the Court finds Endicott and Hale are entitled to qualified immunity.

Black v. Cummings

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 17, 2023

Taken together, Mitchell and Johnson establish a “continuum along which the court makes qualified immunity decisions.” Thompson v. Farmer, 945 F. Supp. 109, 114 (W.D.N.C. 1996). … This legal question is at the heart of qualified immunity. See id. The Court stands by its conclusion the constitutional rights at issue here were clearly established by 2007. See Black, 2023 WL 6444893, at *3 n.3.

Tucker v. United States

143 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Apr 6, 2001

As in University of Pa., the courts in those cases were persuaded by the fact that in enacting the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (“HCQIA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq., which provided qualified immunity for persons … Marin General Hosp., 138 F.R.D. 691, 694 (N.D.Cal.1991) (emphasis added), stated: the passage of a statute specifically addressing peer review issues and, indeed, the giving of qualified immunity to peer reviewers, is strong

Hallman-Warner v. Bluefield State College Board of Directors

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 31, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields [law enforcement] officers from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly- established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to

Workman v. United State

232 F. Supp. 3d 910 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 3, 2017

The Court finds that they were and the Government is entitled to immunity. … Moreover, decisions concerning “language, color, and size of the warning ... are clearly within the discretion of the [government]” Jurzec v. Am. Motors Corp., 856 F.2d 1116 , 1119 (8th Cir. 1988).