Case law

K. Blackwell v. City of Pittsburgh

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2025

“Clearly established means that, at the time of 7 Thomas resolved the tension between federal notice pleading and qualified immunity’s “fact-specific inquiry.” … clearly established.

Lancie v. Giles

132 Pa. Commw. 255 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1990

The present standard for determining if qualified immunity applies was first established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), in which case the U.S. … Supreme Court stated that qualified immunity will be found if an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person should have known. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Picariello v. Commonwealth

54 Pa. Commw. 252 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1980

However, plaintiff’s complaint clearly contradicts that claim, by alleging that the Secretary acted as a Commonwealth agent. 6 The guidelines established in DuBree v. … Defendant shall file an answer, possibly with new matter addressing the issue of qualified official immunity, if desired.

P.G.S. v. S. Hendricks

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2025

qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, this Court applies that doctrine to state officers when considering federal law violations and will be found if an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a

Feldman v. Hoffman

107 A.3d 821 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2014

Hoffman’s duties. 6 The trial court further found that the Letter “was not addressed solely to [Feldman] but to a number of people, and [Feldman] did not clearly establish that [Decedent’s] original note was her property … Hoffman qualifies as a high-ranking public official and it was alleged that he was acting within the scope of his duties, he qualifies for high official immunity. II.

Ziccardi v. Commonwealth

109 Pa. Commw. 628 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1987

Federal courts have applied only a qualified immunity on behalf of Commonwealth officials in section 1983 claims. … Specifically, under the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Wood, the immunity defense would be unavailable to the secretary if the constitutional rights which he allegedly infringed were clearly established at

Costopoulos v. Gibboney

134 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1990

In Harlow , the United States Supreme Court held that State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a 1983 action, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The appellant maintains that the State Troopers did not have probable cause to arrest him, thus, clearly violating his established constitutional rights.

Hall v. ACME MARKETS, INC.

110 Pa. Commw. 199 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1987

Commonwealth, 481 Pa. 540 , 393 A.2d 293 (1978), held that officials are protected by a qualified immunity. … Id. at 545 , 393 A.2d at 295 . 2 Section 1 of the Act of May 18, 1923, P.L. 259. 3 In Witt , this court held that consecutive Secretaries of Banking were protected from suit by the immunity established in *206 DuBree .

Pine v. Synkonis

79 Pa. Commw. 479 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1984

There was also evidence that damaged or missing guardrail had been left unrepaired for an extended period of time. 3 Qualified immunity Initially we must determine whether the Appellants are protected by the qualified immunity … In DuBree , the Court 4 analyzed prior law governing official immunity and established considerations for determining whether an official should be immune. These can be summarized as follows: 1.

T. Gardner v. T. Wealand & J. Fustine

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2026

Federal qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … See R.R. at 284. 11 While he mentions “qualified immunity under federal law” in the heading of the immunity argument section of his brief, see Appellant’s Brief at 22, we note that Appellant bases his immunity

Fischer v. KASSAB

32 Pa. Commw. 581 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1977

He also “[participates in formulating overall Department objectives and policies and in establishing the short and long-range improvements for the State Highway system.” While this is by no means the limit of Mr. … Burke, Superintendent of the Parole Division of the Board of Probation and Parole, clearly an officer of the Commonwealth as we have defined it.

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Reading Area Water Authority

937 A.2d 1173 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2007

Latrobe Municipal Authority, 913 A.2d 988 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), the trial court determined that a per se violation of the Act does not create a dangerous condition of Reading’s facilities, so as to qualify under the exception … Clearly, the dangerous condition, as alleged, originated with the conduct of Reading’s employees.

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth

177 A.3d 1000 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2017

Under federal common law, state legislative privilege and state legislative, immunity is “qualified based on the nature of the claim at issue.” Id. at 334 . … Legislative Respondents clearly are not invoking qualified legislative privilege and immunity under federal common law; rather, they are invoking absolute legislative privilege and immunity based on the Speech and Debate

Travers v. Cameron County School District

117 Pa. Commw. 606 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1988

This was clearly error. Equitable estoppel “does not create a cause of action at law and, unless a plaintiff can first show a cause of action, estoppel will not supply one for him in an action at law.” … These factual allegations and inferences are sufficient, at this point in the litigation where they must be accepted as true, to establish a promise, expected to be relied on, which was relied on by Appellant to his detriment

Johnson v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

805 A.2d 644 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2002

DOT’s recall was effected pursuant to Section 1519(c) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(c), which authorizes DOT to recall operating privileges when a licensee’s incompetency has been established. … to sovereign immunity).

Simko v. County of Allegheny

869 A.2d 571 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2005

The Court concluded a contrary holding could expose the Commonwealth to unlimited liability, a result clearly not intended by the legislature in enacting the immunity statute. Id. at 512, n. 9 , 751 A.2d at 1134, n. 9. … ruling, it is unnecessary for us to address the Representatives' other arguments that: a) Gills’ aortic aneurysm rupture was a superseding cause such as would relieve the County of liability, and, b) Corrigan Drive would qualify

Matarazzo v. Millers Mutual Group, Inc.

927 A.2d 689 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2007

Our court reversed, holding that the allegations and inferences were sufficient to state a cause of action based on promissory estop-pel. 4 Plaintiffs here assert that the holding in Travers establishes that the immunity … Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief; any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer.

Matta v. Burton

721 A.2d 1164 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1998

As such, they were not *1167 related to her position as mayor and thus not protected by absolute immunity. … And Burton’s criticism of Matta’s handling of the contract falls within the scope of her duties and authority because the public clearly has a right to be informed of possible mismanagement by Matta of a $13.5 million school

Joner v. Board of Education

91 Pa. Commw. 145 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1985

Regardless of whether' the Appellant has alleged facts which would have otherwise qualified her claim under an exception to governmental immunity, and we do not now decide whether she has done so, she has not alleged facts … Clearly Vann does not establish such a rule, but establishes only that, under the facts as pleaded in that case, the criminal acts were not a foreseeable use of school property as a matter of law. See Bersani v.

Moody v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

673 A.2d 14 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1996

The question in determining the existence of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable person could have believed the defendant’s action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed. … Therefore, Appellant, had he raised and preserved the issue of qualified immunity, would not have been entitled to that defense because he did not reasonably rely on existing law.