Case law

Grimm v. Borough of Norristown

226 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2002

Analysis of Qualified Immunity Defense We find that there are cases that clearly establish the substantive due process rights claimed by plaintiffs. See, e.g., Blanche Road Corp. v. … If the right is not clearly established in this sense, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. See Vaughn v. Ruoff, 253 F.3d 1124 , 1128 (8th Cir.2001). 29 .

Sabo v. O'BANNON

586 F. Supp. 1132 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1984

In their motions for summary judgments, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … If the law was not clearly established, the defendant should prevail on the basis of the qualified immunity defense unless the plaintiff claims that the official actually knew that he was violating the law.

Open Inns, Ltd. v. Chester County Sheriff's Department

24 F. Supp. 2d 410 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1998

Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 826-28 (3d Cir.1997) (holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity, it is not only the evidence of “clearly established law” that is for the court, but also whether a … Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly-established constitutional or statutory

Druckenmiller v. United States

553 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1982

Harlow modified the previously accepted method of testing defendants’ claims that their conduct was shielded by “good faith” or “qualified” immunity. … Although this issue, i.e., whether Harlow announced a rule which was not “clearly foreshadowed”, is not subject to facile resolution, we conclude that Harlow merely represents a modification in the law of qualified immunity

Armstead v. Township of Upper Dublin

347 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2004

“[Qualified immunity is an objective question to be decided by the court as a matter of law. The jury, however, determines disputed historical facts material to the qualified immunity question.” Id. … Qualified Immunity Because plaintiff has established a constitutional violation, I must now consider whether Officer Lebby should nevertheless be shielded from liability because his actions did not violate “clearly established

O'Donnell v. Tinicum Township

110 F. Supp. 3d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2015

Qualified Immunity Gaul also argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Whether Gaul Violated a Clearly-Established Right “An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statute or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established

DeVatt v. Lohenitz

338 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2004

DISCUSSION Standard for Qualified Immunity The standard for qualified immunity is uniform regardless of “the precise nature of various officials’ duties or the precise character of the particular rights alleged to have been … If qualified immunity is to be defeated, plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test. Initially, he must establish that the government official violated a “basic, unquestioned constitutional right” belonging to plaintiff.

Egervary v. Young

152 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2001

In Harlow, the Court held that qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for actions taken within the scope of their employment unless they have violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional … I agree that once the conduct at issue is established, the question of whether that conduct violates a clearly established legal right is a legal question.

Ballas v. City of Reading

153 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendant Pena reasserts qualified immunity to Count II on the basis that the evidence fails to establish a knowing violation of the law or that his actions were objectively unreasonable. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

McKenna v. City of Philadelphia

771 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 1991

immunity; and fourth, that George Hayes is not entitled to immunity because he violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff to be free of an unreasonable search. … Government officials performing discretionary functions will be immune from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person

Deritis v. Roger

165 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2016

Qualified Immunity Government officials are protected from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. 70 *245 The Supreme Court has mandated a two-step … inquiry to evaluate whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. 71 Courts must determine whether a defendant has violated a constitutional right and whether this right was clearly established at the

Suber v. Guinta

902 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2012

Qualified Immunity The defendant Officers seek to dismiss plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Yarris v.

Constitutional Guided Walking Tours, LLC v. Independence Visitor Center Corp.

804 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2011

at issue was clearly established.” … Said Defendants would therefore be entitled to qualified immunity on this basis.

Russoli v. Salisbury Township

126 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2000

The Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To determine whether the Officers have qualified immunity, we must ask whether a reasonable Officer could have believed the force used to be reasonable in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.

MARCAVAGE v. National Park Service

777 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2011

We must also inquire “whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.” Id. Unless both prongs are satisfied, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Saperstein and Crane are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that Marcavage’s claim under the First Amendment was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

845 F. Supp. 1097 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1994

Qualified immunity may thus be properly invoked to protect governmental officials performing discretionary functions to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Christy’s clearly established rights or that they are entitled to the cloak of qualified immunity from this suit. The motions for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity from suit must therefore be denied.

Hernandez v. Whitesell

462 F. Supp. 569 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1978

But it is well established that waiver of sovereign immunity alone is not enough to justify the exercise of federal jurisdiction over a claim against a state; it must clearly appear that the state has consented to suit in … The Court viewed sovereign immunity as a common law doctrine, established by judicial decision, and therefore subject to modification by judicial decision.

Wolfe v. Horn

130 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2001

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages if their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227-28 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (qualified immunity analysis considers what reasonable officer could have believed in light of clearly established law and information officer possessed

Fleck v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

995 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects governmental officials when they are sued in their personal capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The contours of clearly established rights in the context of qualified immunity are not always sharply drawn.

Gray v. Great Valley School District

102 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2015

The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps: “(1) whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … Thus,, whether Trimble is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of her actions. Estate of Lagano, 769 F.3d at 858 . The Court concludes that it was.