Case law

Bibbs v. New River Community & Technical College

985 F. Supp. 2d 760 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 2, 2013

First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination “by showing (i) that he belongs to a [protected class]; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants … Bibbs clearly did not directly meet the minimum requirements for the 2012 posting of the Administrative Associate position. However, Mr.

Skaggs v. KROGER COMPANY/KROGER LTD. PARTNERSHIP I

788 F. Supp. 2d 501 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Apr 21, 2011

This immunity is lost, however, if an employer acts with “deliberate intention.” Id. § 23-4-2(d)(2). … “It is well established in West Virginia that ordinarily the issue of proximate cause is a jury question to be decided based upon the totality of the evidence.” Arn azzi v.

Cox v. Raleigh General Hospital

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 12, 2022

Finally, Plaintiff argues that qualified immunity is a factual inquiry and “demands that the Defendants prove the basis for privilege.” … Still, even if the Court were to entertain Plaintiff’s argument, it is clearly without merit.

Craft v. Gills

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 4, 2024

This passing reference to qualified immunity is insufficient. … Courts are not required to address the clearly established prong when a “brief mentions qualified immunity for the officer-defendants, but hinges the argument wholly on the lack of a

West Virginia Pride, Inc. v. Wood County, W. Va.

811 F. Supp. 1142 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 14, 1993

A Plaintiff must establish an injury in fact: “[a] threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action.” Virginia v. … The provision is unambiguous and clearly contravenes Pinkus . It condemns material as obscene by impermissibly considering how those in their tender years would react to it.

Ambrose v. Knotts

865 F. Supp. 342 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 17, 1994

The Sixth Circuit, in a ease concerning qualified immunity, held no extension of the Elrod-Branti decisions to independent contractors had been “ ‘clearly established’ in 1983.” Lundblad v.

Brodhag v. United States

319 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Nov 27, 1970

“The erroneous reasoning of the Auditor can be clearly demonstrated as follows: “1. … Clearly, plaintiffs cannot walk both sides of the street. If the purported “disclaimer” is really a release it does not qualify for the deduction sought.

Wilburn v. Smith

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 14, 2025

Next, Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has failed to identify any clearly established right. … This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff should be permitted to amend his Complaint, which may defeat a claim to qualified immunity.

United States v. Richmond

57 F. Supp. 903 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Nov 18, 1944

To the shallow and undiscerning mind it may appear absurd and illogical that evidence pointing clearly to the guilt of a defendant should be ignored and excluded from consideration, merely because it may have been obtained … The constitutional guaranties were not established for the benefit of criminals, but to protect the innocent.

Chafin v. Caudill

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 14, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The test for qualified immunity is “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

A.T. Massey Coal Co. v. Meadows

476 F. Supp. 2d 578 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 1, 2007

As grounds for dismissal, defendant argues that plaintiffs’ suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, that plaintiffs lack standing, and that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Three elements are necessary to establish standing. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact.” White Tail Park, 413 F.3d at 458 .

Sammons v. Sowards

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 18, 2022

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, collateral estoppel is not applicable to the issue of qualified immunity. B.

United States v. State of W. Va.

537 F. Supp. 388 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 28, 1982

President Nixon declared both calamities to be "major disasters," bringing both areas within the ambit of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970 ( Public Law 91-606, 84 Stat. 1744, repealed Pub.L. 93-288, 88 Stat. 164 [1974]), thus qualifying … The same structural theory which compels the conclusion that state sovereign immunity does not bar a suit brought originally by the federal government in the Supreme Court leads to the similar conclusion that sovereign immunity

Blackhurst v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

294 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 22, 1968

Here again, the record shows quite clearly that the plaintiff, along with others in a similar posture and with comparable periods of past service, was considered for re-employment in compliance with the established practice … After giving the plaintiff’s application such consideration, it was concluded that he was not qualified for re-employment.

Handley v. Union Carbide Corp.

620 F. Supp. 428 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 17, 1985

The statute clearly requires “a commonly accepted and well-known safety standard within the industry.” … The spraying of the silicon tetrachloride spills with water, not being found to involve intentional exposure, or for that matter to be a specific unsafe working condition, does not qualify for consideration as to causation

Reese v. Hannah

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 29, 2024

Defendants explain how a government official may be “entitled to qualified immunity when his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendant City of Dunbar cannot claim qualified immunity as a defense as it is not a government official, , 445 U.S. 622 (1980), and the City has not pleaded facts in support of its own meritorious defense

Gardner v. EI Dupont De Nemours and Co.

939 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 10, 1996

The Court concludes the state causes of action associated with the non-contributory policy, which clearly qualifies as an ERISA plan, are preempted by ERISA. … Thus, the claims associated with *474 that policy were clearly removable under the complete pre-emption doctrine.

United States v. West Virginia

537 F. Supp. 388 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 28, 1982

President Nixon declared both calamities to be “major disasters,” bringing both areas within the ambit of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970 ( Public Law 91-606, 84 Stat. 1744, repealed Pub.L. 93-288, 88 Stat. 164 [1974]), thus qualifying … The same structural theory which compels the conclusion that state sovereign immunity does not bar a suit brought originally by the federal government in the Supreme Court leads to the similar conclusion that sovereign immunity

Doe v. Alfred

906 F. Supp. 1092 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 4, 1995

immunity on the individual capacity claims pursuant to West Virginia law. … Plaintiffs clearly had non-futile and adequate administrative procedures available to them had they chose to avail themselves of such in accordance with Policy 2419 § 7(I)(1). 8 .

Doe

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 25, 2026

State Qualified Immunity Rhodes argues she has qualified immunity from Doe’s remaining claims. See Def.’s Mem. 12–15. … Since Rhodes plausibly exceeded her discretion, the Court will not dismiss Doe’s state-law claims on qualified-immunity grounds. C.