Case law

Falkner v. Barkley

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

Qualified Immunity Brown next argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claims as well as all the state-law claims … constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

Neal v. Western Regional Jail

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Apr 3, 2025

Government officials performing discretionary functions may be protected from monetary damages under the doctrine of qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the right asserted was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Smith v. The City of Pennsboro

District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Feb 9, 2021

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity, however, if his acts are “in violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws of which a reasonable person would … violation occurred and (2) whether the right violated was clearly established.”

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.

Kerns v. Bucklew

178 W. Va. 68 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 15, 1987

She later learned that each of the positions had been filled by a male applicant who had only a bachelor’s degree and was no more qualified for the positions than she. … Laura Kerns also completed additional schooling to qualify for a position as a high school teacher. She has been employed as a high school teacher on a full-time basis for several years.

Boggs v. Jividen

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

However, immunity does not attach to discretionary actions or omissions if made “in violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws of which a reasonable person would 1 Although Counts … First, “[a] litigant may pierce the shield of qualified immunity by showing that a government official has violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.”

Miller v. Rubenstein

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jan 31, 2018

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 … entitled to qualified immunity for the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

Pumphrey v. Coakley

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 16, 2018

Regarding the first question in a qualified immunity analysis, whether the Plaintiff had a clearly established right, the Defendants do not object to or assert an argument against the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the … Harvey present no real argument here regarding how they have established qualified immunity, and merely rely on their argument that qualified immunity should be found because Bivens should not be expanded in this case.

White v. Thompson

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 16, 2023

Excessive Force (Count IV) The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … If the answer to either question is no, then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Smith v. The City of Pennsboro

District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Apr 22, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that … The qualified immunity analysis therefore entails two determinations: (1) whether the plaintiff’s rights were violated; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established.

Hammonds v. Prime Care Medical of West Virginia, Inc.

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 5, 2021

, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … entitled to qualified immunity.”

Haney v. County Commission

212 W. Va. 824 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2002

or indirectly in the interest of any employer in relation to an employee; and who employs during any calender week six or more employees as herein defined in any one separate, distinct and permanent location or business establishment … City of Huntington, 191 W.Va. 317 , 445 S.E.2d 500 (1994), that “[a] city, as a political subdivision of the state, is entitled to the statutory exemption for qualifying employers in West Virginia Code § 21-5C-1(e) (1989)

Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc. v. Mercer County Board of Education

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 26, 2021

The defense of qualified immunity shields a government official from liability if the official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … was clearly established.

Christina Vogt v. American Arbitration Association

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 25, 2020

In West Virginia, judicial immunity is “absolute . . . [and] applies (1) to all judicial act[s]; unless (2) those acts fall clearly outside the judge’s subject matter jurisdiction.” Syl. Pt. 4, Roush v. Hey, 197 W. … It is well established that “[t]he granting of a continuance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court[.]” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Dunn, 237 W.

Sharon B.W. v. George B.W.

203 W. Va. 300 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1998

The appellant and the GAL next argue that the lower court was clearly erroneous in faffing to qualify Dr. Timothy Freeman, Ph.D. as an expert witness. … Freeman qualified him to testify concerning these issues. We therefore conclude that the circuit court was clearly erroneous in failing to qualify Dr. Freeman as an expert. However, Dr.

Wittkamper v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department

District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Feb 26, 2024

Plaintiff argues that he has sufficiently pled that the Deputies violated clearly established rights and are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects those police officers who could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law at the time of the action. Pegg v.

Brown v. Mierke

191 W. Va. 120 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1994

employees’ immunity from federal taxation. … According to the Court, Michigan’s justification for its statutory exemption — its interest in hiring and retaining qualified civil servants — was irrelevant to any inquiry into the difference between the two classes, no

Pearson v. Thompson

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 21, 2020

When performing discretionary functions, government officials are “entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which

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.

Brenda v. Smith v. Corporation of Harpers Ferry

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 28, 2014

The court also found respondent corporation immune pursuant to West Virginia Code § 29-12A-4(b)(1) and West Virginia Code § 29-12A-5(a) (statutory immunity for political subdivisions). This appeal followed. … She claims that there remains “considerable controversy” about the facts of this case, that “it was not established that the communications in question were made in good faith or without bad motive,” and that there is a dispute