Case law

Bellmon v. City of Philadelphia

895 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2012

The City argues that the record clearly demonstrates that the patrol car struck the Plaintiff accidentally and that the officers acted reasonably in effecting the Plaintiffs arrest or, in the alternative, that qualified immunity … “The question is what the officer reasonably understood his powers and responsibilities to be, when he acted, under clearly established standards.” Saucier v.

Boyden v. Township of Upper Darby

5 F. Supp. 3d 731 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2014

Officer Sides[ ] is entitled to dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity.” Def. MTD at 7. … As the Supreme Court has explained, “the qualified-immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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.

Briscoe v. Jackson

2 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2014

Qualified Immunity&emdash;Officers Jackson and Carr Government officials are extended qualified immunity in actions brought under section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge

948 F. Supp. 1282 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1996

In Siegert , which dealt with the defense of qualified immunity, the Court noted that, In Harlow [v. … A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established” at-the time the defendant acted is the determination of whether the plaintiff has asserted

Rinderer v. Delaware County Children & Youth Services

703 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1987

established law. … Again, the record is too bare for me to determine whether Ansel is immune from suit by reason of qualified immunity with respect to Richard’s privacy claim. 1 .

Berry v. City of Philadelphia

188 F. Supp. 3d 464 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2016

Was the Right Clearly Established? Even when a plaintiff can show a violation of constitutional rights, qualified immunity may shield an officer from trial. Brosseau v. … Nassan, 556 Fed.Appx. 103, 108 (3d Cir.2014) (holding that Abraham remained good law that could clearly establish a constitutional right for the purpose of qualified immunity); Lamont, 637 F.3d at 185 (“Assuming (as we must

Seybold v. Gunther

393 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1975

While low public officials are entitled to a qualified or conditional immunity, the legal and factual standards upon which such immunity is based have not been clearly defined. … Obviously, were the Court to apply the rules of immunity set forth in Daye and Dwbree, third-party defendants Murphy and Lesko would clearly be immune from liability under tbe facts of this case.

Heron v. City of Philadelphia

987 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendant’s second argument with regard to plaintiffs assertion of lack of probable cause is that Officers Young and Scott are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The basic rule of qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Buoniconti v. City of Philadelphia

148 F. Supp. 3d 425 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2015

Of course, qualified immunity only shields officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Defendant Osborne violated a clearly established right, Defendant Osborne’s conduct is cloaked with the mantle of qualified immunity. E.

Seeney v. Pennsylvania

31 F. Supp. 3d 677 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2014

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA and RA, a plaintiff must show: “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA [and RA]; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … Employee Otherwise Qualified to Perform the Essential Functions of the Job ' Whether a plaintiff can establish element two of a prima facie case-she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job-is

DiSalvio v. Lower Merion High School District

158 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2001

Second, Russell argues that he enjoys qualified immunity. … With regard to § 1983 actions, public officials generally enjoy qualified immunity for their actions unless those actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.

Frantz v. Gress

520 F. Supp. 2d 677 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2007

Qualified Immunity In them response to Plaintiffs Motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that based on the doctrine of qualified immunity, any claim against them would be barred. … The present record does not support a qualified immunity finding at the summary judgment stage because while the rights at issue in this case are both constitutional and clearly established, there remains a dispute whether

Losch v. Borough of Parkesburg

566 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1983

Police officials acting under the color of state law are government officials who perform discretionary functions and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Scheuer v. … The fact that the Assistant District Attorney moved to withdraw the charges at the final hearing does not of itself establish malice. 6 “If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably

Wilkinson v. Ellis

484 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1980

for the former, but asks us to hold that the latter is subject only to qualified immunity. … Such conduct would be subject to qualified immunity at most. 18 . See Briggs v.

Lawson v. City of Coatesville

42 F. Supp. 3d 664 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If this factual question is answered in the affirmative, Boyle and Ingemie would not be entitled to qualified immunity. I will therefore deny summary judgment on the question of qualified immunity.

Gay v. Merritt

574 F. Supp. 105 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 1983

immunity under § 1983. … Defendant would then have to show that his conduct did not, under the circumstances presented, violate plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v.

BRYANT v. POTTSGROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT

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

Lucas’ argument flips the qualified immunity burden. Qualified immunity is not, as Lucas characterizes it, a “shield” that Bryant must “remove” by pleading a violation of clearly law established law. … Nor is “qualified immunity” a “a talismanic phrase that relieves Defendants of their burden to show that their actions did not violate . . . clearly established constitutional [or statutory] rights.” Jennings v.

Tate v. West Norriton Township

545 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2008

The qualified immunity defense may shield Patrolman Delaney from liability to the extent his actions came in the line of duty and were not in violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … to the qualified immunity defense if, in violating the plaintiffs clearly established right, the officer “made a reasonable mistake about what the law requires.” 36 The availability of the defense is a question of law, to

Egervary v. Young

159 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2001

Qualified Immunity.160 1. Due Process Violation.160 a. Liberty Interest.161 b. The Constitutional Sufficiency of the Process.162 2. Clearly Established Right.164 a. Federal Law as of May 1994 .164 b. … Clearly Established Right The federal defendants are entitled to quahfied immunity if they did not violate a “clearly established” right “of which a reasonable person would have known.”