Case law

Wilson v. Bernet

218 W. Va. 628 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2005

See also Davis, 211 W.Va. at 276 , 565 S.E.2d at 398 (Starcher, J., concurring) (“The majority opinion clearly acknowledges that there is not a cause of action for suing an opposing party's expert witness in West Virginia … or maintain a parental or custodial relationship with the minor child {i.e., mistake as to identity of child’s biological parents where paternity has not yet been formally established).

White Ex Rel. White v. Linkinoggor

176 W. Va. 410 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1986

West Virginia Code § 16-3-4 (Supp. 1985), generally requires that all school children be immunized against specified communicable diseases. … The above-cited statutory provision requires immunization for “[a]ll children entering school for the . first time in this state ...”

Kosegi v. Pugliese

185 W. Va. 384 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1991

Katie was killed, i.e., October 1 to December 31, 1982, were likewise not paid or filed pursuant to the time schedule established by W.Va.Code § 23-2-5(a). 2 The hotel ultimately paid its workers’ compensation premiums for … The statute clearly provided in no uncertain terms that an employer who failed to timely remit workers’ compensation premiums was delinquent within the meaning of the statutory scheme and was mandatorily deprived of immunity

Ward v. County Court of Raleigh County

141 W. Va. 730 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 29, 1956

It must be kept in mind that the constitutional provisions relating to immunity of the State, and its agencies, can not be waived by the Legislature. That immunity is absolute. Hamill v. Koontz, Tax Commissioner, 134 W. … This seems to be clearly pointed out by the statement made in the Van Gilder case, quoted above.

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,

State Ex Rel. Patteson v. Sims

136 W. Va. 106 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1951

and to persons not qualified when they attain the age of sixty five; and all such payments were rto be based upon and determined by the wages paid to employees after December 31, 1936. … The contention of the defendant that this State is immune from the imposition upon it by the federal government of the taxes here involved is not tenable.

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.

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

Reid v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Mar 28, 2022

Therefore, “[u]nless a plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … Qualified immunity protects state actors “from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at

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.

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.

deWet v. Rollyson

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 9, 2024

But he may be entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is available only to those who do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Moving to the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, the Court examines whether the constitutional duty established today was “clearly established” on April 1, 2019.

Stoneman v. Bear

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 26, 2022

A state actor sued in her individual capacity for monetary damages generally qualifies as a suable “person” under Section 1983. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27 (1991). But she may be entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is available only to those who do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

Mayhorn v. Logan Medical Foundation

193 W. Va. 42 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1994

We have clearly outlined the standard used by this Court when reviewing a trial court’s decision to qualify an expert: ““Whether a witness is qualified to state an opinion is a matter which rests within the discretion of … Accordingly, we do not find that the trial court clearly abused its discretion when qualifying Dr.

Marcus v. Holley

217 W. Va. 508 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 11, 2005

In establishing this specific standard through the statute, the legislature’s stated intent was “to promote prompt judicial resolution of the question of whether a suit ... is or is not prohibited by the immunity” created … may be caused by his or her own fault or the fault of a coemploy-ee; that the immunity established in sections six [§ 23-2-6] and six-a [§ 23-2-6a], article two of this chapter is an essential aspect of this workers’ compensation

Braxton v. City of Buckhannon

District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Apr 29, 2021

Qualified immunity operates as a civil liability shield for “government officials . . . performing discretionary functions . . . insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity defense is burden-shifting, in that once it is asserted, it then falls to a claimant to show that the conduct complained of (1) violated the law, and (2) the law that was violated was clearly established

McKain v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co.

65 W. Va. 233 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1909

He had- qualified as such officer and filed a copy of his oath of office in the clerk’s office of the county court of the county in which he made the arrest. … The court held the proprietor of the establishment liable for the act of the officer.

Calabrese v. City of Charleston

204 W. Va. 650 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 13, 1999

Unless the legislature has clearly provided for immunity under the circumstances, the general common-law goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by negligent acts must prevail.” … Immunity Provisions Having established that the provisions of W.Va.

Kimberly Landis and Alva Nelson v. Hearthmark, LLC

232 W. Va. 64 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 17, 2013

While a defendant has a right of contribution against a joint tortfeasor, Unipunch and Zando clearly establish that the right “is derivative in the sense that it may be brought by a joint tortfeasor on any theory of liability … We find that the parental immunity doctrine does not preclude the defendants from asserting the defense of abnormal product use by A.N.’s parents to establish their negligence or fault.