Case law

GRIFFIN v. BETANCOURT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2021

Qualified Immunity Trooper Betancourt also asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. He argues that he is entitled to this defense on the grounds that Mr. … Whether qualified immunity applies proceeds via two-step inquiry: first, did the defendant’s conduct violate a statutory or constitutional right and second, was the right at issue clearly established at the time.

United States v. Heljenek

275 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 1967

Sturgis, supra, 342 F.2d at 332 : “ * * * the proceedings before the Board are non-judicial in nature and they are clearly non-criminal. … A registrant claiming such *582 an exemption has the burden of clearly establishing his right thereto. Fleming v. United States, 344 F.2d 912 (10th Cir. 1965); Carlson v. United States, 364 F.2d 914 (10th Cir. 1966).

Davis v. Meese

692 F. Supp. 505 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1988

Minimum qualifying scores have been established for each selection category based on the need for specific candidates from that particular program. … qualified to apply.

Cantor v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

353 F. Supp. 1307 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1973

In their attack on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Rules for lawyers, the plaintiffs do not argue that lawyers should be immune from discipline, but rather they attack the present procedure. … Vagueness Plaintiffs’ attempted reliance on the vagueness doctrine is clearly inapposite. Last term, the United States Supreme Court in Grayned v.

Isley v. Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc.

275 F. Supp. 3d 620 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2017

Disparate Treatment “[I]n order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, the plaintiff must show: (1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified … I therefore conclude that Isley has established the first element of his prima facie case.

United States v. Fumo

628 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2007

The issue of a qualified evidentiary privilege was again before the Third Circuit in earlier proceedings in this prosecution, and that court “[saw] no reason to revisit Granite.” … In that case, the Third Circuit found no health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (2), because the government "has not established, nor did it seek to establish, any type of misrepresentation by [the defendant]

LEE v. CITY OF CHESTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … A court resolving a qualified immunity question must determine whether the facts alleged clearly establish a constitutional right and demonstrate that a constitutional right was violated. See Pearson v.

Asko v. Bartle

762 F. Supp. 1229 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1991

Courts also have recognized that the first amendment immunizes public employees from adverse employment action on the basis of their political affiliation, unless partisan fealty is an appropriate requirement for the position … Second, even if the Court were to consider it, the testimony fails to establish that the communication involved the expression of ideas covered by the free speech clause.

Mercer v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority

26 F. Supp. 3d 432 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2014

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job … Furthermore, even if Mercer could establish a prima facie case of retaliation, he has not established that SEPTA’s proffered reasons for its action are a pretext *448 for discrimination.

Lakits v. York

258 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2003

To prove her claim of battery, Plaintiff must establish that a particular Defendant intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact to Plaintiff, or an imminent apprehension of such contact in Plaintiff, and that such contact … The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that § 1983 claims against public servants in their official capacities are, in effect, suits against the government entity itself. See Brandon v.

ERRINGTON v. CITY OF READING

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2021

Qualified Immunity – Review of Applicable Law “Qualified immunity is not merely immunity from liability, but rather immunity from suit, operating to free the recipient from the burdens of litigation … Where a plaintiff fails to establish the underlying offense through his or her allegations, “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Meachum v. Temple University—of Commonwealth System of Higher Education

42 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1999

he was qualified, “persons outside of the protected class were retained.” 129 F.3d at 295 . … Meachum has thus established his prima facie case. B.

Lynch v. New Jersey Automobile Full Insurance Underwriting

762 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1991

DISCUSSION Personal jurisdiction over defendant in this case clearly cannot be based upon general jurisdiction under § 5301. … into Pennsylvania and then permitting a Pennsylvania resident to operate the auto does not establish minimum contacts between MAIF and Pennsylvania.

Goff v. Bayada Nurses, Inc.

424 F. Supp. 2d 816 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2006

Salary Basis Goffs salary qualified her for the executive exemption. … This works out to roughly $538-$739 per week, and qualifies Goff for the executive exemption.

BRYANT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2026

Qualified immunity shields the government official—who bears both the burden of pleading the qualified immunity defense, see Stringer, 141 F.4th at 86, and the burden of persuasion, see Burns v. Pa. … Lucas is entitled to qualified immunity on both claims. D.

ROSADO v. CITY OF COATESVILLE PA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2020

Defendants have the burden of establishing qualified immunity. Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (3d Cir. 2010). … Qualified immunity protects state actors who have committed constitutional violations if the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Pearson v.

Torres v. McLaughlin

966 F. Supp. 1353 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 1997

Defendants assert that they enjoy qualified immunity from suit because, after the Supreme Court's decision in Albright v. … Dauphin County Social Servs., 891 F.2d 1087 , 1092 (3d Cir.1989) ("The ultimate issue [when evaluating a claim of qualified immunity] is whether, despite the absence of a case applying established principles to the same facts

United States v. Ortiz

897 F. Supp. 199 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1995

Ericksen found that Hispanies constituted 1% of the qualified grand jury pool while Preston testified that Hispanies made up 1.28% of the qualified pool. … . *202 Defendants assert that the selection process for the master jury wheel, for the qualified jury wheel, and thus for the grand jurors violated the Fifth Amendment. 7 A Fifth Amendment violation is established if: (1)

Eastcoast Equipment Co. v. Harnischfeger Corp.

354 F. Supp. 335 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1973

The evidence produced by plaintiff clearly establishes a highly competitive industry in which defendant lacks the power to control prices or unreasonably restrict competition. See United States v. E. I. … Contract Violations Eastcoast has clearly established that there is a substantial likelihood that it will ultimately prevail at the trial on the merits of its claim in regard to the contractual violation.

BURKE v. MITCHELL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2025

Only if conduct which is extreme or clearly outrageous is established will a claim be proven. … Qualified Immunity In his response to Burke’s sur-reply, CO Mitchell argues for the first time that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See ECF No. 78.