Case law

George Koslow v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania D/B/A Department of Corrections Donald T. Vaughn Phico Services Company Compservices, Inc

302 F.3d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2002

Two established exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment's bar permit individuals to sue states. Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. … It clearly has not done so explicitly, as there is no legislation that can be so construed.

James Harvey Johnson v. Warden Noah Alldredge and Corrections Officer Cronrath

488 F.2d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 12, 1973

Clearly, the dispute over disposition of plaintiff’s papers is material unless defendants are immune. … Where, however, as here, such facts are clearly established by affidavits, we have disposed of the immunity issue and have not required further proceedings. E. g., Lockhart v.

McMullen Ex Rel. Obchinetz v. Maple Shade Township Ex Rel. New Jersey Municipal

643 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 27, 2011

Dillon, 403 F.3d 1208, 1223 (11th Cir.2005) (imposing municipal liability for enforcement of a statute held to violate the First Amendment, but granting qualified immunity because the statute’s invalidity was not clearly … established).

Oscar W. Egervary v. Virginia Young James Schuler Frederick P. Rooney, Esquire James J. Burke, Esquire Jeffrey C. Nallin, Esquire John Does One-Ten Virginia Young, James Schuler, Oscar W. Egervary v. Virginia Young James Schuler Frederick P. Rooney, Esquire James J. Burke, Esquire Jeffrey C. Nallin, Esquire John Does One-Ten Oscar W. Egervary v. Virginia Young James Schuler Frederick P. Rooney, Esquire James J. Burke, Esquire Jeffrey C. Nallin, Esquire John Does One-Ten Frederick P. Rooney, Esquire, James J. Burke, Esquire

366 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2004

We have jurisdiction over the Federal Defendants' appeal of the District Court's decision regarding qualified immunity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . … Discussion 34 Defendants raise a number of defenses to the claims asserted against them, including lack of venue, waiver, absolute immunity, qualified immunity, and good faith.

Michael Tyrone Walker v. Martin Horn, Commissioner of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Jeffrey Beard, Deputy Commissioner of Treatment at Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Kenneth Kyler, Superintendent at Sci-Camp Hill Prison Martin Lasky, Medical Director of Sci-Camp Hill Prison William W. Young, Medical Doctor of Sci-Camp Hill Prison William Ward, Unit Manager of Sci-Camp Hill Prison Arthur Auxer, Associate Manager of Sci-Camp Hill Prison Arthur Auxer, Michael Tyrone Walker v. Martin Horn, Commissioner of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Jeffrey Beard, Deputy Commissioner of Treatment at Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Kenneth Kyler, Superintendent at Sci-Camp Hill Prison Martin Lasky, Medical Director of Sci-Camp Hill Prison William W. Young, Medical Doctor of Sci-Camp Hill Prison William Ward, Unit Manager of Sci-Camp Hill Prison Arthur Auxer, Associate Manager of Sci-Camp Hill Prison Martin Lasky

286 F.3d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 16, 2002

of claims to qualified immunity. … Generally, the relevant issue of law is whether the right the defendant is alleged to have violated was "clearly established" at the time the defendant acted or failed to act. See Behrens v.

Frank Giordano v. Andrews Hohns

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 18, 2025

, or part of an independent establishment”); Am. … The Commission thus qualifies as a federal agency under the FTCA and Westfall Act. D.

Marco Antonio Carrasca Fidel Figueroa Abimael Figueroa Rigoberto Vales Barreras v. Edward Pomeroy and Steve Losey, in Their Individual Capacities

313 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 17, 2002

Finally, the District Court held, with only brief discussion in a footnote, that the Rangers are entitled to qualified immunity. … The District Court’s further statement that Pom-eroy “did not violate clearly established law when he detained Plaintiffs because he reasonably believed Plaintiffs were violating state and federal laws when he witnessed them

Domingo Montanez v. Secretary Pennsylvania Depart

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 15, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit even if their actions were unconstitutional as long as those officials’ actions ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Therefore, qualified immunity applies.

Martinez v. Schrock

537 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 25, 1976

I therefore conclude that the district court erred in holding that de *774 fendants were entitled to absolute immunity- Lesser officials are entitled only to a qualified immunity, the scope of which is related to the nature … Such actions are considered governmental in nature and, as such, give rise to a qualified immunity.

In Re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

655 F.3d 158 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2011

Forsyth, the Supreme Court expanded Cohen and held that denials of qualified immunity are collateral orders because an “essential attribute [of absolute and qualified immunity is] an entitlement not to stand trial under certain … circumstances,” and qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” 472 U.S. at 525-26, 530.

Jaffee v. United States

663 F.2d 1226 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 2, 1981

Since the “fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial,” Imbler v. … It reasoned that “[t]he concerns that justified [qualified immunity for individual government officials] are less compelling, if not wholly inapplicable, when the liability of the municipal entity is at issue.” 100 S.Ct.

Alan D. Gordon, M.D. Alan D. Gordon, M.D., P.C., a Corporation Mifflin County Community Surgical Center, a Corporation v. Lewistown Hospital

423 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2005

In order to qualify for HCQIA immunity, a professional review action must be taken: (1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance of quality healthcare, (2) after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts … According to *203 Gordon, in order to qualify its actions based on that conduct as a “professional review action” entitled to immunity under the HCQIA, the Hospital bore the burden to show that his conduct “could affect adversely

Smith v. Dunmore

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 25, 2011

Thus, Smith’s argument that the high public official immunity cannot apply under the circumstances of this case draws too narrow a boundary and is mistaken. 7 Borough council members qualify as high public … officials for purposes of this immunity.

Lizette Vargas v. City of Philadelphia

783 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 2015

immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Yeager's Fuel, Inc. Atlantic Oil and Heating Company Mansfeld Fuel Oil Company Deiter Brothers Fuel Company, Inc. Ralph D. Weaver, Inc. C.A. Lessig, Inc. Harned Durham Oil Company, Inc. Schwanger Brothers & Company, Inc. Sico Company Withlock & Woerth, Inc. Zongora Fuel, Inc. Senick, Inc. Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. H. John Davis, Inc. Arthur J. Ulrich, Inc. Union Fuel Company Guy Heavener, Inc. Desousa Oil and Service Corp. W.C. Reichenbach & Sons, Inc. Apgar Oil Company, Inc. Freyman's Fuel Oil Company, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company. Losch Boiler Sales and Service Co., Individually and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Yeager's Fuel, Inc. Atlantic Oil and Heating Company Mansfeld Fuel Oil Company Deiter Brothers Fuel Company, Inc. Ralph D. Weaver, Inc. C.A. Lessig, Inc. Harned Durham Oil Company Schwanger Brothers and Company, Inc. Sico Company Whitlock & Woerth, Inc. Zongora Fuel, Inc. Senick, Inc. Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. H. John Davis, Inc. Arthur J. Ulrich, Inc. Union Fuel Company Guy Heavener, Inc. Desousa Oil and Service Corp. W.C. Reichenbach & Sons, Inc. Apgar Oil Company, Inc. And Freyman's Fuel Oil Company, Inc. And Losch Boiler Sales & Service Co., Individually and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated

22 F.3d 1260 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 1994

Id. at 584-85 , 96 S.Ct. at 3114-15 . 40 Although the case was decided before the Court clearly delineated its two-pronged test for state action immunity, the Cantor Court in essence ruled that Michigan had not clearly articulated … Because of the "negative option" method in which the rates were "approved," the Court held that the title insurance ratesetting in question was not actively supervised and thus did not qualify for state action immunity.

NEW JERSEY, DEPT. OF TREAS., DIV. OF INV. v. Fuld

604 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 2010

in public service if a full trial were threatened whenever they acted reasonably in the face of law that is not ‘clearly established.’” … There is no separation of powers issue, see Nixon, 457 U.S. at 748, nor are there claims of qualified immunity or state sovereign immunity, see Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526; Metcalf, 506 U.S. at 146.

United States v. Richard P. Herman, United States of America v. James J. McCann in No. 78-1282

589 F.2d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 27, 1978

The principal and qualified surety for the agency was Stuyvesant Insurance Company, to whom Levitt was required to pay 2% of the face amount of each valid bond issued by the agency. … The statute, however, did not clearly specify the nature of the court’s responsibility for review when presented with such an order. In Ullman v.

Bradley v. West Chester University of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

880 F.3d 643 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 26, 2018

Mixner was entitled to qualified immunity. We will affirm both of these rulings of the District Court. … Mixner was entitled to qualified immunity for terminating Ms. Bradley because his conduct did not violate a clearly 18 815 F.2d 244 (3d Cir. 1987). 19 Ms.

Communication Workers of America, Afl-Cio, District 13, Communication Workers of America, Afl-Cio, and District 3, Communication Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Honorable Louis C. Bechtle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Nominal Communication Workers of America, Afl-Cio, District 13, Communication Workers of America, Afl-Cio, and District 3, Communication Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company

932 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 1991

This court on appeal held that the denial of qualified immunity was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and that Mitchell should wait final judgment to appeal. … The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the qualified immunity which Mitchell asserted was an "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is

Nadine Pellegrino v. TSA

937 F.3d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2019

And when we look at the statute “empower[ing]” screeners, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), screeners clearly do not qualify as officers. 2. … But Millbrook had nothing to do with who qualifies as an “officer” under the proviso; it held only that the scope of liability for those who did qualify as “officers” was not limited to the acts of “executing a search, seizing