Case law

Russell Bolden, in No. 90-1478 v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, in 90-1435 v. Transport Workers Union of Philadelphia, Local 234, Transport Workers Union of America Afl/cio, Appellee/cross-Appellant

953 F.2d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 31, 1991

Third, the Court noted ( 491 U.S. at 67 , 109 S.Ct. at 2309) that states enjoyed sovereign immunity from suit under common law, and that Section 1983 was not intended to override "well established immunities or defenses under … under § 1983, the Court stated (id. 110 S.Ct. at 2446-47 (citations omitted) (emphasis added)): 43 Congress did take common law principles into account in providing certain forms of absolute and qualified immunity and in

United States v. John Bazzano

712 F.2d 826 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 20, 1983

Id. at 968 . 97 As for "judicially fashioned" immunity, Mollica clearly failed to make "an application ... to the district court naming the proposed witness and specifying the particulars of the witness' testimony." … is both clearly exculpatory and essential to his case.

Guiffre v. Bissell

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 1994

It also ruled that none of the individual officials was entitled to qualified immunity because Giuffre had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any clearly established laws had been violated by the officials … The "clearly established" standard of Harlow was delineated by the Supreme Court in Anderson v.

Must v. West Hills Police Department

126 F. App'x 539 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 16, 2005

Individual Defendants5 Qualified immunity shields an executive official from suit under section 1983 so long as the officer’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The Supreme Court has explained that the shield of qualified immunity will apply unless the law “put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.”

Berg v. County of Allegheny

219 F.3d 261 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2000

Unless historical facts are in dispute, qualified immunity is a matter for the court. See Infra at 828, 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

United States v. Greenberg

192 F.2d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 28, 1952

The majority of this court, while conceding that these facts “would rather clearly be adequate to establish circumstantially the likelihood that appellant’s assertion of fear of incrimination was not mere contumacy”, held … On the contrary, everything in the record suggests that the unlawful -business in which he might be engaged is the so-called “numbers” business, an activity proscribed by Pennsylvania law and to which his constitutional immunity

Patentas, Ioannis, in No. 81-1807 v. United States of America. Soteris, Ioannis, in No. 81-1810 v. United States of America. Saul Doner, Esquire, Administrator of the Estate of Constantinos Spetsiotis, Andreas Antoniadis, Nicholaos Antoniou, Dimitrios Zambelis and Amver Mehmet, Deceased and Ioanna C. Spetsiotis, Dimitrios Spetsiotis, Ioannis Spetsiotis, Irene Antoniadis, Theodoros Andreas Antoniadis, Andreas Andreas Antoniadis, Efrosini Antonious and Dependent Parents and Sisters of Nicholaos Antonious Dimitrios Zambelis, Andriana Zambelis and Dependent Parents and Sisters of Amver Mehmet, in No. 81-1953 v. United States of America. Arco Pipe Line Company, in No. 81-2001 v. United States of America. Atlantic Richfield Company, in No. 81-2002 v. United States

687 F.2d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 1982

The government is immune from suit unless Congress explicitly waives that immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1352 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980); United States v. … As we have said, there is no evidence of an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity.

Abbott v. Latshaw

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from S 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Our qualified immunity inquiry thus proceeds in two steps. See Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 828 (3d Cir. 1997). First, we must determine whether the defendants violated "clearly established" rights.

Brown v. Muhlenberg Township

269 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 11, 2001

IV Let me amplify my earlier analysis explaining the second prong -- the clearly established prong-- of the qualified immunity doctrine. … the clearly established element of the immunity doctrine.

Weaver v. Bowers

657 F.2d 1356 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 1981

; and (4) in dismissing defendants’ immunity and nonretroactivity defenses because not timely raised. … We have examined the record and cannot call clearly erroneous the court’s finding that Weaver was dismissed because of his political affiliation.

Donald Benn v. Universal Health System, Inc.

371 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 17, 2004

Benn's constitutional claim against Horsham defendants is thus precisely the type of claim that Lugar found to be inadequate to establish state action. 29 Third, this is clearly not a case in which nominally private persons … It is clear, however, that the remaining defendants qualify for immunity if they did not engage in "willful misconduct or gross negligence." See Doby v.

Skerski v. Time Warner Cable Company

257 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 9, 2001

To make out a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that s/he (1) has a "disability," (2) is a "qualified individual," and (3) has suffered an "adverse employment decision" as a result of that disability … of which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits."

In Re Search of Electronic Communications

802 F.3d 516 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 2015

Because an unexe-cuted search warrant is not separate from the merits of the case and is reviewable on appeal, if a defendant is convicted, it does not qualify for review under the collateral order doctrine. … Moreover, Fattah contends that he does not have the opportunity to assert his privilege with respect to certain documents deemed to be “clearly not privileged” until after they are turned over to those prosecuting his case

United States v. Peter Kenly Crownfield

439 F.2d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 1971

Two days later, he formally requested that he be reclassified either I-Y (qualified only in time of war or national emergency) or IV-F (not qualified under any circumstances) because of a recent history of back trouble. … for its decision clearly enough to foreclose the possibility that it relied on an erroneous ground.

Neuburger v. Thompson

124 F. App'x 703 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 5, 2005

Neuburger’s complaint does not allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and therefore the troopers are entitled to qualified immunity. C. … But no federal claim is based on a clearly established constitutional right.

Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp.

738 F.2d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 1984

Clearly, the attorney’s thoughts and opinions given to an expert witness can constitute part of the grounds for the expert witness’ opinion. … I conclude in this case that it is the attorney work product-qualified immunity which must give way. Tr. at 35-36, App.F.

International Association Of Heat And Frost Insulators And Asbestos Workers, Etc., v. United Contractors Association, Inc. Of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

483 F.2d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 1973

This competition is clearly not the concern of the antitrust laws. [Footnote omitted.] … For instance, if the allegations are true, then such acts would not be immune.

Kunda v. Muhlenberg College

621 F.2d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 1980

establish a prima facie case was present in this case. … Rhoades, 527 F.2d 880, 887 (3d Cir. 1975). 64 On review of the record we cannot say that the trial court's finding that plaintiff was qualified for promotion to Assistant Professor was clearly erroneous.

Joseph Watley v. Michael Felsman

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 2020

In assessing a government official’s entitlement to qualified immunity, we determine whether a plaintiff’s constitutional right was violated, and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … “For qualified-immunity purposes, ‘clearly established rights are derived either from binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent or from a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts of Appeals

Eugene Ruocchio Robert A. D'Angiolillo v. United Transportation Union, Local 60 Donald J. Bogen (Dan) United Transportation Union

181 F.3d 376 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 23, 1999

Even the President of the United States is not immune from such penalties. See Jones v. … Mallick does not qualify as a legal precedent for this case because the basic differences in material or adjudicative facts outweigh the resemblances to qualify it as a proper analogy. B.