Case law

Shawn Southerland v. Commonwealth of PA

389 F. App'x 166 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 6, 2010

Second, the qualified immunity question is “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of a defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Id. … The dispositive question in determining whether an officer violated “clearly established” constitutional rights is whether “it would have been clear to a reasonable officer” that his conduct was unlawful—here, that “there

Tourscher v. McCullough

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

Mitchell v. Obenski

134 F. App'x 548 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 2005

Whether a right is clearly established and whether an officer acted reasonably are questions of law. Bartholomew v. … Even if we assume, arguendo, that designation as a fugitive implicates a clearly established constitutional right, Mitchell’s contention still fails.

Fisher Bros. Sales, Inc., in 93-1182 v. United States of America. Julia Saavedra Balmaceda Aandres Munoz Torres Abalos Labbe Juan Pablo Abatte Osorio Hons. Abdon M. Alvarez Abraham Sabaj Nallar Abrigo Olivos Rodemil Acevedo Duran Osvaldo Hernan Acosta Ramirez Carlos Victoriano Acuna Contreras Marco Heribeto Acuna Montero Javier Acuna Gonzalez Mardones Adolfo Riveros Adriana Rodriguez Larragana Agr Henriquez Y Varela Agr Kiwi Masters Ltda Agric Morande Lavin Ltda Agric Caiquenes Ltda Agric Carvallo Ltda Agric Cerrillo Ltda Agric Chorombo Ltda Agric Cotiella Ltda Agric Del Alto Ltda Agric Del Valle Ltda Agric El Espino N12, in 93-1205 v. United States of America. Carben, Inc., in 93-1206 v. United States of America. Compania Sud Americana De Vapores S.A., in 93-1207 v. United States of America. New Market Investment Corporation, in 93-1208 v. United States of America. Guzman Y Del Real, Limitrada, Individually and as Class Representative v. United States of America, Guzman Y Del Real, Limitrada, in 93-1209

46 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

Secs. 1346 (b), 2671-2680, waives the federal government's sovereign immunity with respect to tort claims for money damages. … The FTCA thus waives the government's sovereign immunity with respect to tort claims against the United States for money damages. 15 This waiver of the government's immunity is subject to certain exceptions, however, one

D.P. Enterprises, Inc. v. Bucks County Community College

725 F.2d 943 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 20, 1984

Sec. 8542(b)(5), one of the exceptions to governmental immunity: 6 (b) Acts which may impose liability. … The pleadings in this case clearly show, however, that the tank contained fuel oil, not gas.

Montgomery v. De Simone

159 F.3d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 16, 1998

immunity as a defense in section 1983 actions. … As noted by the Court, in enacting the Civil Rights Act: 22 Congress clearly conceived that it was altering the relationship between the States and the Nation with respect to the protection of federally created rights; it

United States v. Calabrese

942 F.2d 218 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 1991

Every person on the master jury wheel is mailed a qualification questionnaire, which elicits information that would establish whether a juror is qualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1865 . … A qualified juror may be removed from this group only for the reasons set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1866 (c).

Henderson v. Fisher

631 F.2d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 25, 1980

The handling of evidence is clearly within the sweep of "initiating and presenting the State's case", and the prosecutor is immune from Section 1983 liability for such decisions. Imbler v. … Therefore, the prosecutorial act is protected from § 1983 liability by qualified, not absolute, immunity. Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d 1203, 1211-16 (3d Cir. 1979). 19 16.

Christopher Washington v. Leo Hanshaw

552 F. App'x 169 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 9, 2014

immunity. … Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir. 1997) (noting that a defendant must demonstrate that he is entitled to qualified immunity “[o]nly if the plaintiff carries [the] initial burden” of proving a violation of a clearly

Layshock Ex Rel. Layshock v. Hermitage School Dist.

593 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 4, 2010

The district court granted summary judgment to the school district and Morse, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s First Amendment rights. … The court of appeals had ruled that the principal was not entitled to qualified immunity. 13 . Thomas was decided after Tinker but before Fraser . 14 .

Boarhead Corporation v. Edwin B. Erickson, Region Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

923 F.2d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 16, 1991

However, the statute there, unlike § 113(h), did not expressly preclude jurisdiction. 18 CERCLA’s timing of review procedures, as established in § 113(h), clearly preclude jurisdiction to delay or interfere with EPA clean-up … We do note that Erickson is immune from suit based on state regulatory statutes like those Boarhead mentions absent a clear waiver of sovereign immunity. See Hancock v.

In Re: CARNEGIE CENTER ASSOCIATES, Debtor. Deborah RHETT, Appellant, v. CARNEGIE CENTER ASSOCIATES

129 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 31, 1997

While neither court made specific reference to the applicability of the modified McDonnell Douglas framework in reduction in force situations, the record clearly establishes that Carnegie did reduce its force, so we will … Rhett argues that these factual findings are clearly erroneous. Rhett has offered no more than her own opinion that she was qualified for the property manager position.

International Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chemical Co.

978 F.3d 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 30, 1992

In response, IRM argued that ANSAC does not qualify for Webb-Pomerene status because (1) many ANSAC members are owned by foreign corporations and (2) further discovery might reveal that, through its relationship with Hall-Buck … ANSAC responds that the Agreement establishes only that ANSAC is Hall-Buck’s customer, and not a participant in the ter-minalling business.

Kalilah Brantley v. Keye Wysocki

662 F. App'x 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 26, 2016

The District Court granted summary judgment for Wysocki on qualified immunity grounds. The District Court found that there was a constitutional violation, but that the right was not clearly established. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials 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

Stanley Summerville v. Joseph Fuentes

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 10, 2021

is not clearly established. … Through this timely interlocutory appeal, Detective Gregory challenges two legal aspects of the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity: that neither the initial detention nor its length violated clearly established

United States v. James P. Pavelko John C. Kenney. John C. Kenney

992 F.2d 32 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 27, 1993

When arrested, Kenney was given his Miranda warnings and properly informed of both his right to remain silent, and his right to counsel, court appointed if he qualified. … Kenney requested court-appointed counsel, and in response to questions by the court to determine if Kenney was qualified, Kenney replied that “he had not been employed for the past year.”

Mazur v. Merck & Co.

964 F.2d 1348 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 20, 1992

But if this standard is met, the burden shifts to the Mazurs to *1353 establish a “genuine issue of material fact.” Id. … immunizing agents ... have been established by a committee representing the nurses, the physicians and the administration of the agency or institution.”

Mujaddid v. Wehling

663 F. App'x 115 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 12, 2016

evidence for *119 the state, she is absolutely immune from liability under § 1983. … Accordingly, the prosecutor appellees were clearly entitled to immunity.

Desmond Conboy v. SBA

992 F.3d 153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2021

Further, there is a relevant exception to the sovereign immunity waiver. … The actions that occurred by Defendant previously clearly show the scheme at issue here. Even though they try to claim they had no interest since 2006, that is simply not accurate.

In Re: Mushroom Transportation Company, Inc., Debtor. Jeoffrey Burtch Mushroom Transportation Co., Inc. Penn York Realty Company, Inc. Robbey Realty Inc. Trux Enterprises Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia Charles J. Schaffer, Jr. William J. Einhorn Raymond A. Huber Hubert C. Dietrich Robert J. Ewanco William D. Gross Thomas R. Johnston Joseph P. Santone William J. Dillner, Jr. James H. Hutchinson, Jr. John P. O'COnnOr Anthony R. Simones Freight Drivers & Helpers Local 557 Pension Fund Daniel L. Sandy v. Jonathan H. Ganz Pincus Verlin Hahn & Reich, P.C. Pincus Reich Hahn Dubroff & Ganz, P.C. Modell Pincus Hahn & Reich, P.C. Pincus Verlin Bluestein Hahn & Reich, P.C. Astor Weiss & Newman Rawle & Henderson Continental Bank Erwin L. Pincus Richard L. Hahn Pace Reich Jerome J. Verlin Andrew F. Napoli Ronald Bluestein Herman P. Weinberg David N. Bressler Allen B. Dubroff Jeoffrey Burtch, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Mushroom Transportation Company, Inc., Successor to Robbey Realty, Inc., Penn York Realty Company, Inc., and Trux Enterprises, Inc. And Successor to Michael Arnold, Former Trustee in Bankruptcy, Mushroom Transportation Company, Inc., Robbey Realty, Inc., Penn York Realty Company, Inc., and Trux Enterprises, Inc., the Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, Charles J. Schaffer, Jr., in His Official Capacity as a Fiduciary, by His Successor in Office, William J. Einhorn, Raymond A. Huber, Herbert C. Dietrich, Robert J. Ewanco, William D. Gross, Thomas R. Johnston, Joseph P. Santone, William J. Dillner, Jr., James H. Hutchinson, Jr., John P. O'COnnOr and Anthony R. Simones, Trustees of the Western Pennsylvania, Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund or Their Successors, and Freight Drivers & Helpers Local 557 Pension Fund and Daniel L. Sandy, a Fiduciary, or His Successor and Any Other Named or Deemed Substituted (By Virtue of His Office) or Other Successor

382 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2004

"To establish prejudice, the party raising laches must demonstrate that the delay caused a disadvantage in asserting and establishing a claimed right or defense; the mere loss of what one would have otherwise kept does not … establish prejudice."