Case law

Michael Beckinger v. Township of Elizabeth

434 F. App'x 164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 2011

Once an official has asserted qualified immunity, we must determine whether there is an actionable violation of a federally protected right that is “clearly established” at the time of its violation. See Saucier v. … It is well-established that no qualified immunity defense exists for municipalities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Owen v.

Abraham v. Pekarski

728 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 13, 1984

I think it is clearly a jury issue and I will deny your motion. App. at 246-47. This is the only reference by defendants to the sufficiency of the evidence. … Raffiani clearly articulates, it is available only for “legislative,” as distinct from managerial, activities of members of local governments. 708 F.2d at 99 .

Rose, Joseph, in No. 88-1634 v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A. Jr., Goodman, Bert, Vance, Oscar, Montgomery County, and Republican Party of Montgomery County. (d.c.civ. No. 86-6255). Reed, Trudy W., in No. 88-1646 v. Bartle, Paul B., Banning, Rita C., Demaioribus, James R., Collectively as the Salary Board of Montgomery County, Bartle, Paul, Individually, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A., Jr., Goodman, Bert, Vance, Oscar, Montgomery County, Republican Party of Montgomery County, Commissioners of the County of Montgomery (d.c.civ. No. 87-6405). Hill, Frederick B. v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A., Jr., Goodman, Bert, Vance, Oscar, Montgomery County, and Republican Party of Montgomery County (d.c. Civil 86-6963). Hill, Frederick B. v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Smyth, Joseph A., Jr., Goodman, Bert, and Republican Party of Montgomery County, Montgomery County (d.c. Civil 87-3927). Appeal of Frederick Hill, Kolimaga, Walter, in No. 88-1653 v. Bartle, Paul, Asher, Robert, Montgomery County, and Republican Party of Montgomery County (d.c. Civil No. 87-0804)

871 F.2d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 20, 1989

At most, it would be subject to a qualified good-faith immunity. 71 Id. at 566 . 72 The district court distinguished Helstoski on two grounds. … The first three activities clearly are encompassed by the immunity doctrine as "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process."

Migliaro v. Fidelity National Indemnity Insurance Co.

880 F.3d 660 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 2018

As the District Court correctly noted, “The Third Circuit has not explicitly defined what qualifies as 6 We exercise plenary review over a grant of summary judgment and apply the same standard the district court applies … We must interpret this waiver of sovereign immunity—and the cause of action authorized under it—narrowly. See Lane v.

Donovan v. United States

580 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 26, 1978

In order to determine if such a lawsuit is proper, we must assess whether the United States has granted a right to sue it for damages, for it "has long been established . . . that the United States, as sovereign, 'is immune … In order to establish the predicate for mandamus relief here, plaintiff must demonstrate an actual failure by ECOM officials to carry out clearly defined official duties.

United States v. George Stoney

62 F.4th 108 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

Therefore, now only § 924(c)(3)(A), the “elements clause,” contemplates whether a felony offense qualifies as a crime of violence. 4  Whether or not a crime qualifies as a “ … His § 924(c) guilty plea clearly establishes that his conviction is predicated on a completed Hobbs Act robbery, which is a crime of violence. We will affirm. 6 See United States v.

Mark D. Tourscher v. Martin Horn, Secretary of the Pa. Dept. Of Corrections John McCullough Superintendent ,(d.c. Civil No. 98-Cv-00176j)

184 F.3d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 12, 1999

because the law regarding whether a pretrial detainee can be compelled to work in a prison cafeteria was “not so clearly established that defendants could be considered to know that their conduct is unlawful.” … United States, 976 F.2d 1299, 1300-01 (9th Cir.1992) (affirming district court’s judgment on the basis of qualified immunity without deciding, whether plaintiff had established a constitutional violation, where district court

Walter T. Peters, Jr. v. Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania and New Jersey

16 F.3d 1346 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 22, 1994

It may also establish, maintain, and operate a rapid transit system between certain points in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Compact art. I. … , the Amendment should not be construed to immunize such an entity.

Jorden v. National Guard Bureau

799 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 23, 1986

Under the circumstances, Chappell clearly bars a Sec. 1983 damages action. 12 III. … Therefore, the paramaters of the qualified immunity under section 1983 must be defined by reference to the common law....

Bennett v. Murphy

120 F. App'x 914 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2005

Murphy’s Lack of Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages … Conclusion We have determined on the record before us that Murphy is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Eddy v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority

256 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 2001

Under the qualified immunity defense, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … We affirm the District Court’s decision denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because Eddy has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Marcus Perez v. Jerome Teresinski

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2023

Qualified immunity shields a state official from § 1983 liability unless “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and “the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … established.”

William Joseph Healy, Jr. v. New York Life Insurance Company

860 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 7, 1988

Second, we are satisfied that Healy established a prima facie case, since he showed that: (1) at age fifty-six he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position from which he was discharged; (3) … The Company asserts that to establish a prima facie case in the context of a RIF this fourth criterion requires Healy to prove that after his discharge a less qualified employee was retained in the same position.

Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Thomas E Proctor Heirs Trust

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 31, 2026

One, at issue in Galette, is that the entity then qualifies for sovereign immunity, but another is that the entity is disqualified from state “citizenship” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. … The Commonwealth’s Immunization from the Game Commission’s Debts and Liabilities When analyzing the final funding subfactor, we ask “whether the state has immunized itself from the entity’s debts.”

Scott v. Plante

691 F.2d 634 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1982

They made the same contention before the trial court and in the last appeal. 17 A qualified immunity defense based on unsettled law did not originate with Harlow v. Fitzgerald. See, e.g., Procunier v. … N.J.Stat.Ann. 30:4-24.2(e)(2). 18 In light of this specific statutory recognition, defendants can hardly claim that the rights which Scott seeks to vindicate, as a matter of law, were not clearly established.

Marvase Spell v. County of Allegheny

642 F. App'x 105 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 2016

Recognition of qualified immunity is proper at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage “when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leveto v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official is entitled to immunity from suit for violating a plaintiff’s rights unless the right at issue was “clearly established.” Reichle v. Howards, 132 S.

White-Squire v. United States Postal Service

592 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

“Because the Federal Tort Claims Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Act’s established procedures have been strictly construed.” Livera v. … We stated that “[t]o evaluate whether Congress ‘clearly stated’ that a requirement should ‘count as jurisdictional,’ we ask whether the requirement appears in or receives mention in the jurisdictional provision of a given

Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation

77 F.3d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 16, 1996

Congress certainly could have amended the definition of "employment agency" in the same manner that it so clearly amended "employer" in 29 U.S.C. § 630 . … "The discretionary power to withhold injunctive and declaratory relief for prudential reasons, even in a case not constitutionally moot, is well established." S-1 v.

Wiltshire v. Government of Virgin Islands

893 F.2d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 16, 1990

The policy established the extent of liability of the defendant in this action, the government of the Virgin Islands. … Greiner Engineering, Inc., 861 F.2d 784 (3d Cir.1988) (determining meaning of particular contract term clearly involves construction).

Wheeler v. Towanda Area School District

950 F.2d 128 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 3, 1992

First, the opinion and order establish that a given interpreter is not qualified to interpret for a particular student simply because the School District has pronounced him or her qualified. … The Secretary's opinion clearly established that this was not the case. The School District, under the terms of the Secretary's opinion, would have been required to replace Kane.