Case law

In Re James

120 B.R. 802 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1990

eleventh amendment immunity to claims brought under § 542(b) and § 547(b). … Congressional waivers of sovereign immunity.

Leitch v. MVM, INC.

538 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2007

The Wilson decision is clearly dispositive of the due process claims of Burge, Churm and Smith. … These letters are insufficient to establish a disputed issue of material fact for two reasons.

Brown v. Harris 6034

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2022

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), “[w]hether the violated constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the arrest.” Order (ECF 13); see Pl.’s Suppl. Br. (ECF 15); Defs.’ Suppl. Br. … At summary judgment, the police officer as the movant has the burden of establishing an entitlement to qualified immunity. Id.

JACOBS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2024

right was “clearly established.” 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). … If there is no violation or if the right was not clearly established, then the actor is protected by qualified immunity. Id.

Brown v. Spade

502 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1980

Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978), the record in this action is adequate to sustain a finding of good faith immunity as a matter of law. … In any event, such a claim was not “clearly established” at the time of the plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing on November 15, 1976.

Nunn v. NHS Human Services, Inc.

110 F. Supp. 3d 554 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2015

(concluding that plaintiff failed to establish the fourth prong of the prima facie case as, inter alia, he could not show that he was at least as qualified as the person who was hired). a. … Furthermore, plaintiff cannot show that her qualifications were so clearly superior to Mr.

Helbling v. Unclaimed Salvage & Freight Co., Inc.

489 F. Supp. 956 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 1980

What do you mean by not qualified? A. … Plaintiff clearly made out a prima facie case. As a woman, she is protected by Title VII. She was qualified for the manager’s position, according to defendant’s standards.

Austin v. Dionne

909 F. Supp. 271 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 1995

Under Pennsylvania choice of law rules and the method of analysis established in Griffith , three outcomes may obtain. … Clearly, application of New Jersey law would defeat Pennsylvania’s policy against double recovery.

Krochalis v. Insurance Co. of North America

629 F. Supp. 1360 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1985

The traditional rule is that plaintiff must prove malice to establish abuse of a qualified privilege “by showing that the defamatory communication was made for an improper motive, in an improper manner, or was not based upon … if they can be overcome by a mere standard of negligence, and that a higher standard of fault should be required to establish abuse of a qualified privilege.

BISHOP v. UPPER DARBY TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants allege that they are protected from suit by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity provides immunity from suit in situations where a reasonable officer could have believed his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law. See Anderson v.

Jordan v. City of Philadelphia

66 F. Supp. 2d 638 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 1999

Given the established law on this issue, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims will be granted. E. … Clearly, we cannot rule on the viability of plaintiffs’ claims under this statute without identification of the specific provisions sought for redress.

Carabello v. Beard

468 F. Supp. 2d 720 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2006

Eleventh Amendment thus immunizes it from suit. … Thus, Beard argues, the filing of this action on January 25, 2006 clearly exceeded the applicable two-year statute of limitations.

Kuhn v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

80 F.R.D. 681 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1978

We also believe that the plaintiffs themselves are well-qualified to represent this class. … We agree with plaintiffs that this action qualifies under Rule 23(b)(2). See Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., supra.

Cory v. SmithKline Beckman Corp.

585 F. Supp. 871 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1984

Many of plaintiff’s job bids were clearly denied prior to the 300-day period; however, plaintiff clearly has made allegations which, if believed, would establish ADEA violations within the limitations period. … To make out a prima facie case of age discrimination plaintiff must establish that (1) she was within the protected age group, (2) she was rejected for a promotion to an available job for which she was qualified, and (3)

GASKINS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The Court will not belabor the qualified immunity analysis in this matter.

Garvey v. National Grange Mutual Insurance

167 F.R.D. 391 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 1996

Substantial Need Despite qualifying for protection under the work product doctrine, the plaintiff may still obtain discovery of these doeuments. … Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(3), the plaintiff has the burden of establishing a substantial need for the materials in question. Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3).

Gay v. Watkins

579 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 1984

Crystal, therefore, clearly acted in good faith and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Harlow v. … Furthermore, the reporter failed to raise the immunity defense.

Martinez v. Quality Value Convenience, Inc.

63 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 1999

I found in the Order that Martinez had not established a prima facie case of age discrimination for two reasons: he had not shown that he was qualified for the editor position, and he had not come foreword with evidence casting … A district court “should continue to exercise [its] jurisdiction when faced with clearly premature notices of appeal.” Id.

WILLIAMS v. RUSSELL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2021

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must “plead[ ] facts showing that (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … To overcome the assertion of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff must sufficiently plead not only a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, but also a violation of a clearly-established

Smith v. Steffens

429 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2006

Independent Contractor Status The tort liability of the United States rests entirely upon the express waiver of sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Norman v. United States, No. CIV. … These provisions clearly delineate Golden Feather’s responsibility to discover and repair hazardous conditions. Id.