Case law

Williams v. West Virginia Division of Corrections

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

A former inmate who has been released is no longer ‘incarcerated or detained’ for the purposes of § 1997e(h) and therefore does not qualify as a ‘prisoner’ subject to the PLRA”). … Plaintiff clarifies that these state laws were referenced in the Amended Complaint simply to support her assertion that Defendants had notice of their alleged duties imposed under clearly established law.

Oak Hill Hometown Pharmacy v. Dhillon

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 23, 2019

The statute by its own terms requires the DEA factually establish that the continued operation of the Pharmacy poses an imminent danger. … The DEA clearly disagrees with the court’s assessment of the continued risk the Pharmacy posed at the time the ISO was issued.

Hysell v. Raleigh General Hospital

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 31, 2022

Thus, unlike standard of care, proximate cause may be established through a “reasonable inference” of causation. Sexton, 216 W. Va. at 718-20, 613 S.E.2d at 85–87. … The jury elected to award $9,000,000.00, clearly indicating that they made deductions from the life care plan, as they were encouraged to do by Plaintiffs’ counsel, if they felt it was consistent with the evidence.”

Shafii

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Apr 6, 2026

However, it appears that the Plaintiff did not receive the Court’s order and, as a result, did not serve the Defendants prior to the established deadline. … However, it does not require plaintiffs to establish a certainty of success. Roe v. Dep't of Def., 947 F.3d 207, 219 (4th Cir. 2020), as amended (Jan. 14, 2020).

Judy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 27, 2023

The 2014 appraisal unquestionably qualifies as an “other paper” under § 1446(b)(3). … An exception to this rule arises when “all facts necessary to the affirmative defense ‘clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint.’” Id. (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v.

Stephens

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

Plaintiff was informed in this Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 11), to state a cause of action under § 1983, he must present facts showing that: (1) a person deprived him of a federally protected civil right, privilege or immunity … We have expressly held that Title VII does not provide a remedy against individual defendants who do not qualify as “employers.” See Lissau v.

Adams v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation

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

Wilmington Trust Co., 855 F.3d 178, 189 (4th Cir. 2017). 2 The report submitted by Plaintiffs’ expert is clearly deficient. … Therefore, even if “diesel range organics” qualify as “tangible objects” necessary to effect a trespass, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that their land is being polluted by such a substance.

Parks v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Apr 8, 2019

Parks indicated his income had changed and filed additional financial information in November 2018 to qualify for a loan modification. … Parks did not have the necessary income to qualify for a loan modification. (Todd Aff. ¶ 13-17 and 23-27) (Document 24-1.). However, Mr. Todd’s affidavit also reveals that Mr.

United States of America <i>ex rel.</i> v. Boyko

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jun 7, 2019

The Relator argues that the complaint is clearly pled and the motions to dismiss rely on factual disputes that cannot be resolved at this stage. … reimbursement claims applicable to services its employees were not qualified to provide.

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Southeastern Land, LLC

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Apr 17, 2018

But, in considering whether res judicata precludes an action, the issue must “clearly appear[] on the face of the complaint.” Id. (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. … Given the purpose of these environmental regulatory schemes reflected in the CWA and SMCRA, the Court will not permit “partial immunity from civil liability for future violations.”

King v. McCollins

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

established constitutional rights all in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments[.]” … established constitutional rights similarly fails.

Blankenship v. Trump

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

Trump, Jr.’s quote tweet comment includes: Ha, now I’m establishment? … The plaintiff is clearly a subject of both the quote tweet and the reply tweet.

S. B. v. Wilson

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 30, 2021

The contract between Nakamoto and the BOP was made and intended for the benefit of plaintiff as a member of the class definitely and clearly within the terms of the contract … To qualify as a third-party beneficiary under federal common law, a plaintiff must show that “the contract reflects the express or implied intention of the parties to benefit

Porter v. Braskem America, Inc.

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 19, 2021

The parties do not dispute that West Virginia Code § 55-2-12(c) establishes a one-year statute of limitations for bringing a defamation action. … Va. 1983). 3The Braskem Defendants contend any statements that may be attributed to them are not cognizable as defamation because they are subject to qualified privilege.

C. L. v. Wilson

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 30, 2021

The contract between Nakamoto and the BOP was made and intended for the benefit of plaintiff as a member of the class definitely and clearly within the terms of the contract. … To qualify as a third-party beneficiary under federal common law, a plaintiff must show that “the contract reflects the express or implied intention of the parties

Griffith v. The Chemours Company

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 21, 2021

The load shack is a designated space where a qualified person attends and monitors the loading and unloading of hazardous materials in cargo tanks. … Discharges of pollution into jurisdictional waters without a permit are clearly prohibited under the WVWPCA. See W. Va. Code § 22-11-8(b).

Sogefi USA, Inc. v. Interplex Sunbelt, Inc.

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 7, 2021

issue an injunction “would have the unfortunate effect of immunizing most foreign defendants from needed emergency injunctive relief”).9 Having concluded that completion of formal service … Clearly, Sogefi did not accept the revisions that Interplex Mexico proposed in that email, and yet the parties continued to perform.

United States v. Shaffer Equipment Co.

796 F. Supp. 938 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jun 17, 1992

Clearly, dismissal of this matter with prejudice would relieve the Defendants of a potential liability in excess of $5 million and preclude the Superfund from recovery of monies previously expended. … The United States called Caron as a witness at trial to establish that the material transported ■by Cummings was a hazardous substance.

Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Incorporated

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

During the meet and confer process, Defendant supposedly agreed to review the specific documents at issue and produce any that it determines, upon further review, do not qualify as privileged. … Judge Aboulhosn's finding that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff sufficed to set forth a prima facie case for punitive damages is not clearly erroneous.

Mid-State Automotive, Inc. v. Harco National Insurance Co.

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 25, 2020

Mar. 23, 2015) (“The standard for testing the adequacy of the privilege log is whether, as to each document, it sets forth facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish each element of the privilege or immunity that … Defendant’s redactions and the reasons for them are clearly identified on the pages where redacted material appears. (See ECF No. 73-1.)