Case law

Donivan v. Dallastown Borough

835 F.2d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 1987

Likewise we have described case law which clearly outlines that in order for immunity to attach, the action must be legislative in nature. See Abraham, supra. … P. 4(a), concerning appeals of civil cases as a right, a motion for reconsideration qualifies as a motion under 59(e). First Jersey National Bank v.

Studli v. Children & Youth & Families Central Regional Office

346 F. App'x 804 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 9, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court mandated a two-step process for analyzing claims of qualified immunity. … To determine if Rugg or Hazlitt are entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine if Studli has adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and if so, whether that right was clearly established

Walker-Serrano v. Leonard

325 F.3d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 16, 2003

The record as a whole clearly demonstrates that no Constitutional violation occurred. *422 Finally, I note my agreement with the District Court’s ruling that, in any event, the defendants in their individual capacities are … entitled to qualified immunity; that Mr.

Delores Simmons, Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel La Friscoe Simmons v. The City of Philadelphia Police Officer A. Panati, Badge No. 2587

947 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 21, 1991

Although the merits of the City’s argument that the PSTCA overrides a municipal waiver of immunity are far from certain, see supra at 1083-84, Skibo clearly stands for the proposition that an argument raising immunity under … Rellergert was a qualified immunity appeal concerning whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the deliberate indifference of individual police officers.

Barton v. Curtis

355 F. App'x 635 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 8, 2009

The District Court granted Curtis’s motion for summary judgment, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. We will affirm. 1 I. … right and the right was clearly established at the time of the objectionable conduct.”

Guarnieri v. Borough

364 F. App'x 749 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 4, 2010

immunity because the law was not clearly established; and (5) that, for a variety of reasons, the evidence was insufficient to support liability. … Our decision in San Filippo is clearly established, controlling law, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Francisco Jose Rivero v.

Lincoln v. Hanshaw

375 F. App'x 185 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 22, 2010

right violated was not clearly established at time of the violation. … Thus, plaintiffs have not shown that a constitutional violation occurred, much less that the right assertedly violated was clearly established, sufficient to defeat qualified immunity.

Barton v. Curtis

355 F. App'x 635 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 8, 2009

The District Court granted Curtis’s motion for summary judgment, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. We will affirm. 1 I. … right and the right was clearly established at the time of the objectionable conduct.”

Thomas F. Bennis, Roger J. MacLean v. Carson S. Gable, Joseph S. Daddona, City of Allentown

823 F.2d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 1987

Government officials are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability for damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. … Comm’rs, 747 F.2d 139 (3d Cir.1984), this court addressed the issue of analogous precedent in the context of ascertaining “clearly established” law for purposes of the qualified immunity defense, and rejected a requirement

Lomando v. United States

667 F.3d 363 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 2011

Section 2674 clearly expresses Congress’ objectives in this regard, and that intent is made all the more forceful by the legislative history surrounding the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 233(o). … “If the language is plain and clearly reveals the statute’s meaning, the Court’s sole function is to enforce the statute according to its terms.” Frugis v. Bracligliano, 827 A.2d 1040, 1058 (N.J. 2003).

Gilles v. Davis

427 F.3d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 25, 2005

First Amendment violation 51 The essence of the majority opinion is that, though defendants may have violated Gilles' First Amendment rights, the law was not so clearly established as to deprive the officers of qualified … To assess a qualified immunity claim, this Court must examine not only "the law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation" but also "the facts available to the official at that time." Paff v.

United States of America Ex Rel. David Tyrrell v. Fred Speaker, Former Atty. General of Pa.

535 F.2d 823 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 1976

It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good-faith belief, that affords a basis for qualified immunity of executive officers for acts … Finding No. 11, which is not clearly erroneous, reads as follows: “11.

United States of America, in No. 97-1888 v. Gerson Cohen, in No. 98-1004

171 F.3d 796 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 1999

testimony is clearly exculpatory, the proffered testimony is essential to the defense, and there is no strong governmental interest against the immunity. … The District Court must reduce the base offense by 2 levels "Wf the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense." TIS.S.G. § 3E1.1.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Glen Smith, Elton Rieara, Elvis Smith and Roland Georges

615 F.2d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 5, 1980

where the government either rebuts the defendant’s showing or establishes that the public interest would be disserved by a grant of immunity to a defense witness or that such a grant would entail significant costs to it, … The record on this appeal establishes that either of these theories may be available to the defense.

Amato v. Wilentz

952 F.2d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 1991

, but he was entitled to qualified immunity from damages because he did not violate clearly established law. *744 Chief Justice Wilentz appealed, pressing every defense he raised before the district court. … law” and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity from damages, id. at 562 .

Studli v. Children & Youth & Families Central Regional Office

346 F. App'x 804 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 9, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court mandated a two-step process for analyzing claims of qualified immunity. … To determine if Rugg or Hazlitt are entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine if Studli has adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and if so, whether that right was clearly established

United States v. Mike

655 F.3d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2011

to negate the otherwise clearly exculpatory nature of such testimony. … We have found that the “clearly exculpatory”, standard for a use immunity analysis is “similar [to the] analysis [that] applies to [an] alleged Brady violation.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 348 (3d Cir. 2002).

Ronald Chisolm v. Patrick McManimon Jr., Director of Mercer County Detention Center Mercer County Court, United States of America, Intervenor

275 F.3d 315 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

Appellees do not dispute that Chisolm is a qualified individual with a disability. … (“[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability ... be subjected to discrimination by any [public] entity.”); 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a) (providing that a qualified disabled person shall not, “solely

Hyatt v. County of Passaic

340 F. App'x 833 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

Wright, 778 A.2d at 462 . 3 Accordingly, because the PCPO and its officials acted in their official capacities as agents of the State, they qualify for Eleventh Amendment immunity.' 4 Appellants nevertheless argue that the … Alternatively, Appellees have qualified immunity. Officials may not be sued under § 1983 based on an arrest where "officers of reasonable competence could disagree” on whether there is probable cause. Malley v.

Judith Henry v. Essex County

113 F.4th 355 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2024

They argued their qualified immunity from her suit, that Henry could not pursue her claims under the cause of action announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. … That is because we can immediately review decisions denying qualified immunity when they turn solely on issues of law. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 671-72 (2009).