Case law

Ali v. Raleigh County

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 29, 2018

because they are immune from suit for torts stemming from intentional acts. … He argues that his complaint clearly provides allegations of acts by Defendant Tanner that, although they only occurred once, constitute sufficient conduct to satisfy a single decision by a municipal policymaker such that

Ramaco Resources, LLC v. Chubb INA Holdings, Inc.

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 6, 2020

Ramaco relies on the Barefield decision as establishing the ongoing duty of good faith by an insurance company. … Ramaco is entitled to discover factual information underlying claims and defense, which Blake clearly has in his role as a corporate Vice President. See Upjohn Co. v.

Osborne v. United States

166 F. Supp. 2d 479 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 23, 2001

Loftis saw Hoosier he was clearly under the influence of either prescription medications or alcohol. … Srichai clearly was aware Hoosier was abusing his prescription drugs, as well as abusing alcohol; (4) Dr.

McCoy v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

858 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 14, 2012

Our court of appeals lays a “heavy burden” upon a defendant claiming fraudulent joinder: “In order to establish that a nondiverse defendant has been fraudulently joined, the removing party must establish either: [t]hat there … The best way to advance this objective is to accept the parties joined on the face of the complaint unless joinder is clearly improper.

Carter Enterprises, Inc. v. Ashland Specialty Co.

257 B.R. 797 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 31, 2001

Revenue, 530 U.S. 15 , -, 120 S.Ct. 1951, 1955 , 147 L.Ed.2d 13 (2000) (“Creditors’ entitlements in bankruptcy arise in the first instance from the underlying substantive law creating the debtor’s obligation, subject to any qualifying … Appellant avers that the bankruptcy court “determined that even though Ashland Specialty had not established the amount of its claim, it was entitled to a judgment for the amount of its proof of claim.”

Goodman v. United States

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 3, 2018

Defendant, on the other hand, argues that its immunity was never rooted in the terms of the Affiliation Agreement but rather stems from the limitations of the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. … Plaintiff’s claims are clearly not frivolous, as she has submitted to the Court ample evidence of her injuries throughout the litigation of this case.

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Elk Run Coal Co.

291 F.R.D. 114 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Apr 11, 2013

Thus, consideration of these factors is useful in discerning whether corporate research qualifies as confidential commercial information entitled to protection under Rule 26(c). … Rossi, 180 F.R.D. 338, 341 (N.D.Ill.1998) (Sufficient specificity standard requires a likely and significant injury); Waelde, 94 F.R.D. at 28 (E.D.Mich.1981) (Harm must be clearly defined, rather than speculative competitive

Living Lands, LLC v. Cline

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 15, 2022

The Court could not ascertain the specific relief requested by Plaintiff, as this was not clearly identified in the Amended Complaint. … The Supreme Court has declined to apply Burford where none of the established criteria were met. Martin, 499 F.3d at 365.

Sheppheard v. Justice

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jun 25, 2024

Defendants have been sued only in their official capacities pursuant to the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. See Doyle v. … The answering party may, when good faith requires, qualify the answer or deny only part of it. Id. When that is done, the answering party must specify any part admitted, any part denied, and any part qualified.

Black v. Cummings

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 28, 2023

West Virginia recognizes that the State may be liable under the principles of respondeat superior for the actions of State officials, in “situations wherein State actors violate clearly established rights while acting within … Defendants appear to believe that because A.B. requires a violation of “clearly established rights,” and because Mr.

United States v. Lewis

220 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 11, 2002

Expressive conduct and symbolic speech also clearly fall within the ambit of first amendment protection. … These three violent felony convictions qualified Lewis for punishment as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(1).

Braley v. Thompson

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 3, 2023

Nov. 17, 2017) (holding political subdivision was immune from claims for IIED, outrage, and battery). … IIED—was intentional); , 2021 WL 5056081, at *4 (upholding claims for battery, IIED, and excessive force but dismissing negligence claim because allegation that defendant’s actions were “willful and wanton” clearly

Williams v. Dr. Rashed

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 30, 2020

Williams’ amended complaint may not have qualified for the “rare, exceptional instance where administrative exhaustion” is facially apparent, the Court SUSTAINS Mr. … Williams has alleged in his amended complaint, however, that while segregated to his cell “as [a] chronic and terminally ill inmate with a low immune system,” Ms.

Nutter v. Mellinger

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 13, 2020

Sovereign immunity would also prevent recovery for damages against defendant Fields in her official capacity. Virginia Office for Prot. & Advocacy, 563 U.S. at 253. … As previously explained, the Complaint has not plausibly alleged that the actions of the Housing Authority or defendant Fields qualify as state action.

Fifth Third Bank v. McClure Properties, Inc.

724 F. Supp. 2d 598 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 9, 2010

Fifth Third argued that the 2004 commitment letter failed to qualify as a legal contract due to a lack of mutual assent. The Court disagrees. … To the contrary, the Court clearly instructed Defendants to point to "any evidence in the discovery record which supports Defendants' argument against summary judgment.” See Doc. 72 (emphasis supplied).

Allstate Insurance v. DiGiorgi

9 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jun 30, 1998

In fact, the Supreme Court of Mississippi has adopted a blanket rule that “a minor child qualifies as a ‘resident’ in both households of divorced parents.” Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. … Here, the facts clearly support a finding that Danielle was a resident of her father’s household. Gino DiGiorgi was not a noncustodial parent, as were many of the parents described in the caselaw.

State of West Virginia v. Ziegler

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 19, 2019

Defendant filed his Notice of Removal on the ground that plaintiff “blatantly violat[ed] this Pro Se Defendant- Petitioner’s clearly established Federal Civil Rights unambiguously … Clause Right to Fair Jury Trial, Due Process of Law, Access to the Courts, Right to Property, Right to Association, Freedom of the Press, Interstate Travel, Commerce, Privileges, Immunities

Ziglar v. Skiles

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 29, 2023

“For that reason, unauthorized detention of just one day past an inmate’s mandatory release date qualifies as a harm of constitutional magnitude under the first prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis.” , 984 … I now turn to the second requirement: that Plaintiff establish that Defendant Skiles acted with “deliberate indifference.”

Dostert v. Neely

498 F. Supp. 1144 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 10, 1980

The Judicial Inquiry Commission is the creature of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals which established the Commission pursuant to the court’s authority under Article 8, Section 8 of the Constitution of West Virginia … The exceptions to the Younger doctrine were most clearly articulated in Huffman, supra, where the court held that federal courts should interrupt state proceedings when (1) the state proceeding is motivated by a desire to

Dean v. Officer Charles Newman

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Nov 2, 2022

Plaintiff denied the request based upon a qualifier that she added of her own accord. Such an answer is entirely improper. … It requires no qualifiers. Therefore, the motion to compel a complete answer to this request is GRANTED.