Case law

Porter v. City of Phila.

337 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2018

of persuasive authority' in the Court of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." … As in Monteiro , Porter's First Amendment rights were clearly established. Accordingly, Chew is not entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

McBride v. Cahoone

820 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2011

Qualified Immunity With Respect To Probation Officer Don Cahoone Under the qualified immunity principle, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar … We analyze two issues when evaluating a qualified immunity question: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly

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....

Draper v. Darby Township Police Department

777 F. Supp. 2d 850 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2011

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 person … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Holly v. Rapone

476 F. Supp. 226 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1979

Defendants May Rely On The Affirmative Defense Of Qualified “Good Faith” Immunity It has been established without question that prison officials and officers are entitled to qualified, rather than absolute immunity, in the … Nevertheless, the immunity defense would be unavailing if: (1) the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, they knew or should have known of the

LIGHT JR. v. BLAIR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2020

Defendants further argue that the claims against Defendants Blair and Kirkland should be dismissed under the doctrine of qualified immunity.38 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages … when their conduct “does not violate clearly established 34 Amend.

Mitros v. Borough of Glenolden

170 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2001

immunity. 4 Government officials have qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The defendant has the burden of pleading and proving qualified immunity. 5 Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Griffin v. Spratt

768 F. Supp. 153 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … So, even if the court found that Spratt had violated the Directive, he would be entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Stewart v. Moll

717 F. Supp. 2d 454 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 2010

Moll also contends that he is immune from the estate’s excessive force claim pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … violation has occurred or whether the constitutional right is clearly established.”

Arditi v. Subers

216 F. Supp. 3d 544 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2016

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are immune from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … seizure is clearly established. 2.

Parsons v. City of Philadelphia Coordinating Office of Drug & Alcohol Abuse Programs

833 F. Supp. 1108 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1993

Once this has been established, the burden then shifts to the employer to establish a legitimate reason for taking the alleged discriminatory action. Weldon, 896 F.2d at 797 ; Lewis, 725 F.2d at 914 . … Once this has been established, it is up to the plaintiff to establish that the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason was merely pretextual. Weldon, 896 F.2d at 797 , Lewis, 725 F.2d at 914 .

DiJoseph v. City of Philadelphia

953 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1997

In DiJoseph I, I granted qualified immunity to Officers Mattiacci and Hairston because I found that the state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established law at the time the incidents in question occurred. … Hence, qualified immunity would not protect the trooper from suit.

Mertz Ex Rel. Mertz v. Houstoun

155 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2001

The MCCA amended the Medicaid Act to establish a mechanism to protect couples from being forced to deplete their assets to qualify for Medicaid. … Inc., 151 F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir.1998) (discussing distinction between Eleventh Amendment immunity and state sovereign immunity).

Patrick v. Moorman

855 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2012

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether the Purported Right Was Clearly Established Even if we did not conclude that Moorman’s apprehension of Patrick satisfied the strictures of the Fourth Amendment, Moorman would still be entitled to qualified immunity

Quinn v. Cunningham

879 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1995

“extra hours” for “extra work” after filing his grievance; and (3) that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Patterson v. Bd. of Probation and Parole

851 F. Supp. 194 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 1994

Therefore, because the law forbidding such searches was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident, the officer in this case is entitled to qualified immunity. … I find that the constitutional right against arrest without probable cause is a “clearly established” one, and therefore defendant McGuire is not shielded by qualified immunity. Patzig v.

Saunders v. Horn

960 F. Supp. 893 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1997

established that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act apply to state prisons, and, consequently, the defendant prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity under these statutes. 6 The Torcasio court’s primary reason … In reliance on Torcasio , one district court in this circuit has also held, in the context of qualified immunity, that it is not “clearly established” that the Rehabilitation Act applies to correctional facilities.

Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

904 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 1995

Qualified Immunity Joint Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Christy’s claims. … To determine whether a public employee is entitled to qualified immunity, courts ask whether the right alleged to have been violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

HODINKA v. Delaware County

759 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2011

These defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Legal Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials are immune from suits for civil damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Verdier v. Borough

796 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2011

immunity because they violated clearly established rights of citizens under the Fourth Amendment. 10 IV. … On a motion for summary judgment asserting the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the initial burden to show that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiffs clearly established right. Sherwood v.