Case law

Schwartz v. County of Montgomery

823 F. Supp. 296 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1993

Defendants, in turn, submit that inasmuch as they are immune from suit under the doc-’ trines of absolute and qualified immunity, judgment is properly entered at this time in their favor as a matter of law dismissing Plaintiffs … Qualified immunity is the more limited type of immunity and generally protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Lacey v. Borough of Darby, Pa.

618 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1985

Defendants invoked the defense of qualified immunity. … The Third Circuit held that the sole inquiry relevant to the qualified immunity issue was “whether Losch had clearly established rights to petition the government in the manner that he did and to be free of malicious prosecution

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.

Presley v. Morrison

950 F. Supp. 1298 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1996

Therefore Morrison, a probation officer acting in his capacity as such, is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity, which he has asserted. Under the protection of qualified immunity! … light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Fitzgerald v. Cnty. of Lehigh

381 F. Supp. 3d 443 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2019

Even if the Detectives' behavior violated Fitzgerald's Fourth Amendment rights, they did not violate clearly established law at the time of the incident and *459 are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because such rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Hanks v. County of Delaware

518 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2007

The qualified immunity defense is twofold. … To evaluate this proposition, I move to the second prong of qualified immunity and inquire whether Officer Sabillon’s conduct would have been clearly unlawful to a reasonable officer in his situation.

Garner v. Meoli

19 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1998

The Court will not disturb the verdict. 3 As to the issue of the defendants’ qualified immunity, it is well established that qualified immunity is a question of law for the Court and that the issue of what law was “clearly … There would be no need to charge on clearly established law. Mr. Hanna: Well, that, in effect, would be the clearly established law. Id. at 117-18.

Allah v. Al-Hafeez

208 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2002

on the basis of qualified immunity. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages unless a reasonable official in his position would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Anderson v.

Raitport v. Provident National Bank

451 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1978

However, “[t]he fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” … Both Sullivan and Carrafiello may well enjoy qualified, or “good-faith,” immunity, which is quite another matter. See note 3 supra. 5 .

Kenworthy v. Hargrove

826 F. Supp. 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1993

Finally, Hargrove argues that the issue of her entitlement to qualified immunity meets the criteria for certification. … Therefore, assuming Hargrove took such actions, she violated clearly established due process rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Arnold v. City of Philadelphia

151 F. Supp. 3d 568 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified ■ immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the' official: (1) violated a statutory or .constitutional right; and, (2) the right was clearly established at the … Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Godfrey v. Upland Borough

268 F. Supp. 3d 717 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2017

Regarding individual-capacity claims, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because the rights at issue — Plaintiffs’ rights not to be deprived of their, property without due process — are clearly established, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is not warranted at this time. 14 However, any

Shuman v. City of Philadelphia

470 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1979

O’Neill and Clark both assert a qualified immunity from damage liability. *462 This qualified immunity is based upon such cases as Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1975) and Wood v. … Therefore, while the Court clearly ruled out the possibility that a municipality might have total immunity, the possibility of a qualified immunity remains.

Benjamin v. Fassnacht

39 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2014

A defendant bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 , 142 n. 15 (3d Cir.2001). … A right is “clearly established” for pur poses of qualified immunity if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.”

Martin v. City of Reading

118 F. Supp. 3d 751 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2015

Qualified immunity protects an official from a suit for money damages unless a plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … For Defendant Errington, there are material issues of fact bearing on his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Olender v. Township of Bensalem

32 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1999

The policy behind qualified immunity is to weed out those claims that clearly lack merit as early as possible in the litigation process. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 814 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a “clearly established right” under the Fourth Amendment which, if violated, would ordinarily survive a defense of qualified immunity. See Orsatti v.

Okocci v. KLEIN, CO.

270 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2003

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity The goal of qualified immunity is to “avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment.” Harlow v. … If the law was not established clearly, qualified immunity holds since a public official “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Eichelman v. Lancaster County

510 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2007

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 , 197 & n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) *387 (an official does not lose qualified immunity if her conduct violated clearly established state law where the conduct did not violate clearly … Individual municipal officials named in a § 1983 action in their individual or personal capacities enjoy qualified immunity from liability under § 1983 so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

McNeil v. City of Easton

694 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2010

Qualified Immunity The defendant officers contend that qualified immunity shields them from plaintiffs Section 1983 claims. … ’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right....

Booth v. King

346 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2004

Qualified, Immunity PPS defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 17-18.) Under Saucier v. … Second, was the right clearly established?