Case law

Stauffer Ex Rel. DeMarco v. William Penn School District

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

immunity. … immunity- A.

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.

Safeguard Mutual Insurance v. Miller

477 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 1979

As to the remaining eight categories, however, I concluded that the defendants were entitled, at most, to a qualified immunity. … It is firmly established that in order to state a cause of action under section 1985(3), plaintiffs must show a conspiracy motivated by an invidious, discriminatory, class-based animus. Griffin v.

Albright v. City of Philadelphia

399 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2005

Because this training would have qualified Albright to perform job functions she was not at the time qualified to perform, it would affect Albright’s employment opportunities. In Nelson v. … In order to recover under § 1983, Albright must establish that the City (1) while acting under color of state law (2) deprived her of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

BURKE v. BACHERT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2023

“The burden of establishing qualified immunity falls to the official claiming it as a defense.” Burns v. PA Dept. of Corr., 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982)). … On the face of the Amended Complaint, no remaining Defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity is clear.

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.

Thompson v. Trent Maritime Company

149 F. Supp. 468 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1957

Answers to interrogatories failed to produce evidence sufficient to establish that at the time of service Lavino was respondent’s agent, and I find, therefore, that Lavino was not. … My research has not disclosed any case in which respondent’s point was clearly raised and squarely decided. Cases such as Johnson v. Black Diamond Lines, D.C.E.D.Pa.1941, 36 F.Supp. 721 ; Andrade v.

Mallare v. St. Luke's Hospital of Bethlehem

699 F. Supp. 1127 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1988

establishes that plaintiff was not qualified to practice his specialty. … Applying that principal, we must conclude that defendant has not unequivocably established that plaintiff was not qualified for staff privileges and/or that his asserted lack of qualifications is an irrefutably legitimate

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lincow

792 F. Supp. 2d 806 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2011

Pretrial matters, which magistrate judges may decide, are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A). … On remand, Judge Rueter should determine whether the evidence presented before him sufficed to satisfy Defendant’s burden of establishing the exemption’s applicability to the AXA Account, 2 and shall prepare a report and

Schneck v. Saucon Valley School District

340 F. Supp. 2d 558 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2004

The “Sham” Litigation Exception to Noerr-Pennington Immunity As noted earlier, in PRE , the Supreme Court defined the “sham” exception to *574 Noerr-Pennington immunity to include “only lawsuits that are both objectively … The suspension alone clearly had a degree of permanence such that plaintiffs awareness of the need to assert his rights should have been triggered.

Griffin v. Wilhelmsen

24 F.R.D. 431 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1959

“to narrow or define the scope * * * sufficiently to overcome the objection” within the spirit of Local Rule 20(d), which, by its terms, only applies to interrogatories. 1 *434 The defendant may be required to deny 2 or qualify … Request 18 is argumentative and only possibly could be proper if certain facts were established, which are not now in the record.

SERRANO v. WITTIK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2021

Administrative or investigative actions are only protected by qualified immunity, Van de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 342 (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, n.33), unless they relate directly to the conduct of a criminal trial. … The test is whether the actions clearly serve the prosecutorial function. If they do, the prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity.

GIDDENS v. CURRENTLY UNKNOWN AND UNNAMED SEPTA POLICE OFFICERS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2021

“A court presented with a claim of qualified immunity must examine both the law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and the facts available to the official at that time, and must then determine … Thus, I will decline to grant qualified immunity at this stage of the case. B.

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2022

The Supreme Court has identified two types of immunity applicable to § 1983 claimsabsolute immunity and qualified immunity.4 Id. (citing Buckley v. … Dawson, 969 F.2d 5 Where a prosecutor is acting outside of their role as an advocate, they are only afforded qualified immunity rather than absolute.

United States Ex Rel. Hoss v. Cuyler

452 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1978

Depending on the functions performed by the official, the common law immunity may be absolute or qualified. … I shall assume that only the qualified immunity applies here. 25 Generally, that immunity requires that the governmental official have acted within the scope of his official responsibility and with a reasonable and good faith

In Re Asbestos School Litigation

768 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 1991

Armco Steel Corp. 2 , cited by Kaiser Gypsum, here there is a federal rule clearly applicable to the issue at hand. … A “governmental vs. proprietary function” test has been rejected as a means of determining governmental immunity generally, and as a test for the application of nullum tempus specifically.

Bernstein v. Township of Lower Moreland

603 F. Supp. 907 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 1985

On May 21, 1982, Bernstein was granted immunity by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. … The Supreme Court has not clearly delineated the boundary between those interests that are liberty interests and those which are not, although considerable guidance is available from the Court’s opinions.

DOBROSKY v. LOMETTI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2023

We need not determine whether Eleventh Amendment or qualified immunity applies. 2. Ms. … The remainder of the opinion addressed qualified immunity. Id. at 13–*14. The other cases cited by Ms.

Toppi v. United States

327 F. Supp. 1277 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 1971

The Federal Tort Claims Act removes the shield of immunity from the United States and allows injured plaintiffs to maintain certain actions against the federal government if such an action would exist against an individual … Plaintiff may be able to establish that the government in fact undertook inspection, that such undertaking was negligently performed, and that plaintiff reasonably relied on such inspection thereby causing his injuries.

Horvath v. Federal Deposit Insurance

20 F. Supp. 2d 844 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1998

to the Bank and increase and maintain the number of directors of the Bank to a minimum of six directors, subject to prior approval of such persons by the Department and the FDIC; and (iii) the Bank is required to retain qualified … Inasmuch as the statute clearly provides that exclusive jurisdiction for review of the FDIC’s decision rests with the Court of Appeals, we find plaintiffs request for injunctive relief to be in direct contravention of both