Case law

United States v. Stanley Apfelbaum

584 F.2d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 10, 1978

Clearly such use would contravene Kastigar.” United States v. Frumento, 552 F.2d at 542 . Nor may immunized testimony be used to impeach the testimony of the witness. Id. at 542-43 ; United States v. … As noted, Hockenberry , in defining the scope of the protection afforded by the immunity statute, limited the use of subsequent testimony to that “essential to establishing the corpus delicti.”

Estate of Frances D DeRosa v. Philip Murphy

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 2026

Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit summarily affirmed dismissal of a similar claim on qualified immunity grounds, likewise finding no clearly established right was violated. See Arbeeny v. … Because Plaintiffs have not alleged the violation of a clearly established right, none of their constitutional claims survive Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.

54 Fair empl.prac.cas. 184, 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,635, 5 indiv.empl.rts.cas. 1471 Priscilla Kelsey Andrews and Debra Ann Conn, in No. 89-1302 v. City of Philadelphia and Wilson W. Goode, Individually and in His Capacity as Mayor, City of Philadelphia, and Kevin M. Tucker, Individually and in His Capacity as Police Commissioner, and Orville W. Jones, Individually and in His Capacity as Personnel Director, and Joseph Liciardello, Individually and in His Capacity as Captain, Accident Investigation Division, and John Doe, Individually and in His Capacity as a Philadelphia Police Officer Assigned to Accident Investigation Division, and Frank Doyle, Individually and in His Capacity as Sergeant, Accident Investigation Division. Appeal of Frank Doyle and Joseph Liciardello

895 F.2d 1469 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 1990

A public official's actions are protected by qualified immunity if s/he can show that the "offending" conduct did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known … This is not the purpose of qualified immunity.

International Security LLC v. Dana Berry

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 7, 2025

DISCUSSION 1 The qualified immunity doctrine shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Because the constitutional right Berry and Parsons are alleged to have violated was not clearly established when they acted, they are entitled to qualified immunity. II.

En Hui Huang v. Attorney General of the United States

620 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 2010

For example, in the context of qualified immunity for constitutional torts, the analysis requires a judgment about whether the possible event actually gives rise to a reasonable fear. … Reg. at 54,890 (“The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard does not apply ... to the application of legal standards, ... includ[ing] judgments as to whether the facts established by a particular alien amount to ... a ‘well-founded

Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corporation

350 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

R.Evid. 702 represents the logical outgrowth and memorialization of the Supreme Court's landmark cases establishing the standards for admitting expert testimony. 8 In Daubert v. … may be generally qualified but may lack qualifications to testify outside his area of expertise.

Stevenson v. Carroll

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2007

Warden Carroll asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that even if the facts alleged show a violation of a constitutional right, that right was not clearly established. Saucier v. … We leave it to the District Court to consider qualified immunity on remand. V.

Maryjane Hollyday v. Gene E. Rainey, Chairman of the Buncombe County Commissioners, in His Official Capacity and in His Personal Capacity Doris P. Giezentanner, in Her Official Capacity and in Her Personal Capacity Jesse I. Ledbetter C.T. Sobol, in His Official Capacity and in His Personal Capacity William H. Stanley, in His Official Capacity and in His Personal Capacity Michael Kirstein, in His Official Capacity and in His Personal Capacity Robert Thornberry, Jr., in His Official Capacity and in His Personal Capacity, Buncombe County, a North Carolina County v. Robert Curtis Ratcliff, Third Party

964 F.2d 1441 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 26, 1992

She has, however, established a prima facie case of a constitutional tort. This brings us to the defense of legislative immunity. III 31 The county bases its defense of legislative immunity on Schlitz v. … The district court entered judgment for the defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed on the ground that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Michael Rinaldi v. United States

904 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2018

The inmate must "clearly mark 'Sensitive' upon the Request and explain, in writing, the reason for not submitting the Request at the institution." Id. … As for § 542.17(c), the only qualifier to permission to appeal directly is that "the inmate is not given an opportunity to correct the defect and resubmit." Id. § 542.17(c).

Copeland v. Philadelphia Police Department

840 F.2d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 7, 1988

We are ordinarily required to address the validity of the qualified immunity defense as an initial matter, but, because the qualified immunity defense is not available to a municipality, Hynson v. … Therefore, we put aside the issue of the applicability of the qualified immunity defense based on the facts of this case.

Matthew Conte v. Jose Rios

658 F. App'x 639 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 2016

7 Two, was that right “clearly established.”8 The order of these two prongs is interchangeable.9 Here, the District Court identified the right at issue. … It reached this conclusion, however, without determining whether Conte’s Fourteenth Amendment right was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

John Mazuka v. Rice Township Police Departmen

655 F. App'x 892 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 8, 2016

B Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must point to evidence “showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Stephen Schleig v. Borough of Nazareth

695 F. App'x 26 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 2017

The Court concluded that “[Schleig’s] Amended Complaint is sufficient to plead a claim for retaliation,” (App. at 9), and that Troxell’s qualified immunity defense failed because “[i]t is clearly established that a public … DISCUSSION2 Qualified immunity protects government actors from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

In Re Grand Jury Investigation, Philip Charles Testa, Witness. Appeal of Philip Charles Testa

486 F.2d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 25, 1973

Bechtle 1 who, pursuant to a petition of the government, signed an order granting him immunity. … The earlier prosecution of the appellant and any investigations which were related to them are clearly different cases.

Bittner v. Snyder County

345 F. App'x 790 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 23, 2009

The claims arising from Bittner’s arrest were dismissed because of District Attorney Sholley’s absolute prose-cutorial immunity. … The District Court dismissed Bittner’s claims based on the post-arrest conduct on the ground that District Attorney Sholley had qualified immunity.

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

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

The pleadings in this case clearly show, however, that the tank contained fuel oil, not gas. … First, we disagree with the conclusion that the pleadings in this case “clearly show, however, that the tank contained fuel oil, not gas.”

Garrett Collick v. William Paterson University

699 F. App'x 129 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 26, 2017

denied qualified immunity with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim, concluding that the facts as alleged did not permit the Court to conclude that Defendants did not violate a clearly established right. … We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that it could not grant qualified immunity to DeSimone on the Fourth Amendment claim. 5 Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence establishes that DeSimone’s entitlement to qualified

Richard Potts v. Ronnie Holt

617 F. App'x 148 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 24, 2015

not clearly established. … Defendants bear the burden of establishing qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. See id. at 288.

United States v. Daniel K. Cless, Margaret J. Cless, Elwood A. Sterner, Marion L. Sterner, C. Hoerner Cassel

254 F.2d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 11, 1958

As remarked above, if the United States were a private person, its lien would clearly be divested by Pennsylvania law. … We feel certain that Congress did not intend to do this by implication, and clearly the statute does not explicitly provide that the United States must be joined as a subordinate lienor.

Twillie v. Foulk

360 F. App'x 301 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 13, 2010

Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Twillie’s claims arising from the destruction of evidence were barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Based on our conclusion that Appellees Nelson and Franklin are entitled to summary *305 judgment for these reasons, we need not address the District Court's conclusions that the doctrine of qualified immunity applies and