Case law

JOSE LUIS SANTIAGO v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2026

immunity); Burns v. … City of Philadelphia, 181 F.3d 339, 356 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting that “a prosecutor acting in an investigative or administrative capacity is protected only by qualified immunity”) (citations omitted).

United States v. McINTOSH

58 F. Supp. 2d 612 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1999

In dispute are the prior convictions used to establish career offender status. … The court notes that the records again fail to indicate clearly whether the defendant actually served any portion of that sentence.

United States v. Guerrina

112 F. Supp. 126 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 1953

The evidence before me clearly demonstrates that insofar as the defendant was concerned, the examination was completed when the agents left him on or about December 22, 1949. … Here so far as the defendant knew or had been *129 informed his books and papers were being examined by Agent Coram to establish his proper civil liability.

Griffin v. United States

351 F. Supp. 10 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 1972

County program is established clearly by plaintiffs’ exhibit 31 A-K. … Fourth, it did not immunize the intestinal tract against infection by polio virus, so that persons immunized with Salk vaccine could still be links in the chain of infection of non-immunized persons.

Uddin v. Mayorkas

862 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 16, 2012

In order to qualify for the SAW program, an immigrant had to establish that s/he had performed 90 days of agricultural work in the United States during the 12-month period prior to May 1, 1986. … News, 5649, 5677), it certainly did not create it with the intention of immunizing fraudulent SAW applicants from negative immigration consequences.

WOODHOUSE v. SPEARMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2023

The court concluded that “there is no requirement that a person be an employee in the traditional sense, but only that the employee is acting on behalf of the government entity” to qualify for immunity under the Tort Claims … Based on the pleadings and record, I conclude that UIA “was acting on behalf of the government entity” when it conducted the rough-in inspection and approval, which is sufficient to qualify for immunity under the Tort Claims

Quarles v. Ponente

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 2022

In addition, officers may be protected from liability due to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest plaintiff “in light of clearly established law and the … supporting his claim of a violation of clearly established law.

JACKSON v. FAULKNER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2020

Administrative or investigative actions, on the other hand, are only protected by qualified immunity, id. at 342 (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, n. 33), unless the actions “relate directly to the conduct of a criminal … serve the prosecutorial function, entitling the prosecutor to absolute immunity.

GARCIA v. WIND CREEK BETHLEHEM LLC D/B/A WIND CREEK BETHLEHEM

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Joshua Hill, Inc. v. Whitemarsh Township Authority (In Re Joshua Hill, Inc.)

199 B.R. 298 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1996

THE DEFENDANTS’ ASSERTION OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AS TO THE REMAINING CLAIMS MUST BE REJECTED. … Furthermore, the seal clearly contains the corporate name of the Authority only.

Kane v. BOC Group, Inc.

992 F. Supp. 773 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1998

compensation regime, I *776 must be convinced by specific language in the agreement that the employer contemplated being liable for his own negligence and accepted the extraordinary liability connected with waiving its immunity … No inference from words of general import can establish it.” Perry v. Payne, 217 Pa. 252 , 66 A. 553 (1907). 5 .

Wolfe v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections

334 F. Supp. 2d 762 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2004

Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d *776 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.1988). 9 Because Wolfe’s Ex Post Facto clause claim relates to established Parole Board policies, it can not be said that under no set of facts can Wolfe establish that the … Qualified Immunity. Finally, defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claims. For the reasons discussed above, the Fifth Amendment claim is dismissed.

Alifano v. Merck & Co., Inc.

175 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2001

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA and PHRA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the law; (2) she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of … The Complaint clearly states Plaintiffs disability as fibro-myalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

City of Philadelphia v. Securities & Exchange Commission

434 F. Supp. 281 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 1977

As noted above, the City does allege that the investigation has a significant effect on the financing and dis *288 tribution of municipal services, which are clearly “areas of traditional governmental functions,” and for … The Supreme Court has made clear that the states’ immunity does not even extend to all direct federal commands. In Fitzpatrick v.

US Ex Rel. Atkinson v. Pennsylvania Shipbuilding

528 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2007

Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 138 , 112 S.Ct. 1076 , 117 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992) (“[I]t is well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending.... … The court cannot conclude that these claims were clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for the purposes of harassment.

Stauffer Ex Rel. DeMarco v. William Penn School District

829 F. Supp. 742 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 1993

immunity. … immunity- A.

HALL v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT

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

Thus, in determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, a court must answer two questions: “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right,” and “(2) whether the right was clearly established … A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202.

Heinze v. Heckler

581 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1983

This has led to cardiac catheterization in an attempt to more clearly define the organic problems in dealing with his heart. … In sum, plaintiff presented acceptable medical evidence establishing a disabling combination of physical symptoms and cardiac neurosis. The Secretary rejected Dr.

United States v. Union Corp.

277 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2003

The City also argues that PUCTA does not invalidate the doctrine of sovereign immunity and raises the immunity defense pursuant to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 et seq. (“PSTCA”). … The City cannot interpose the immunity defense of a state tort claims act as a bar against claims under CERCLA.

United States v. New Holland Sales Stable, Inc.

603 F. Supp. 1379 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1985

Moreover, the Lindsey court’s holding is contrary to established Third Circuit law. In United States v. … that for all the cattle they received, they issued appropriate bills of lading, and these bills of lading qualify as documents of title as defined by U.C.C. § 1-201.