Case law

RAYNER v. THE COUNTY OF CHESTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2025

Sept. 1, 2020) (“Because a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process right against malicious prosecution was not clearly established in 2008—and is still not clearly established for that matter—the Court grants qualified … “If a court concludes that an officer's conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, then it must deny him the protection afforded by qualified immunity.” Curley, 298 F.3d at 277.

Burkhart v. Saxbe

596 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1984

Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” ... … No other “circumstances” are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity. We conclude that the District Court correctly held that appellee has demonstrated no violation of his clearly established constitutional rights.

MACK v. AVERTEST, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2020

Darrah would be entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable officials in her position “could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal standards.” … Supp. at 335 (“A qualified immunity only protects defendants if it can be shown that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Forsyth v. Kleindienst

551 F. Supp. 1247 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1982

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … Under the Harlow standard, a government official is immune from suit if the law was not clearly established at the time of the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct.

Brockington v. City of Philadelphia

354 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are generally immune from trial ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Schneyder v. Smith

709 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2010

Detention As a Material Witness Requires Probable Cause Under Third Circuit law, “a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … would have known that those rights were clearly established constitutional rights. 2.

Thomas v. City of Phila.

290 F. Supp. 3d 371 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2018

Instead, the Court concludes that any procedural due process right is not (and was not at the relevant time) clearly established, meaning that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity in this case. A. … In any event, the real battle on the Brady count is qualified immunity: did police officers (as opposed to prosecutors) have clearly established Brady duties in 1993? In Gibson v.

Callahan v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13

880 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1994

immunity because no clearly established rights existed); Doe v. … established, and is not entitled to qualified immunity).

Dennis v. City of Phila.

379 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2019

Borough of Nesquehoning , 905 F.3d 711 , 719 (3d Cir. 2018) (explaining that the qualified immunity inquiry was whether the right at issue in that case was clearly established at the time the alleged conduct occurred). … They argue that because it was not clearly established in 1992 that police officers had any Brady obligations, the Defendant detectives are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Gaymon v. Borough of Collingdale

150 F. Supp. 3d 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2015

Defendants sought to redefine the focus of the qualified immunity analysis to whether there was a clearly established “First Amendment right to record” police, officers performing their official duties at the time of the … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must allege facts showing that the Defendant officers’ conduct (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

Kedra v. Schroeter

161 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2016

Under these circumstances, the vio-lative nature of Defendant’s alleged conduct has not been clearly established, and so Defendant is necessarily entitled to qualified immunity. IV. … at issue was clearly established.

Toth v. Bethel Township

268 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 2017

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … Even where a plaintiff has shown the violation of constitutional rights, an individual defendant will still enjoy qualified immunity unless those rights were clearly established at the time- of -the violation.

Noonan v. Kane

305 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2018

It determined that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity since he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 572 . … established for the purpose of qualified immunity.

Miller v. City of Philadelphia

954 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1997

Defendants further claim that Scheer has qualified immunity under § 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right held by plaintiffs. i. … (holding standards for interviewing children that had allegedly been sexually abused not clearly established and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity), cer t. denied, 484 U.S. 828 , 108 S.Ct. 97 , 98 L.Ed.2d 58

Gallaher v. Goldsmith

213 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2002

When analyzing a qualified immunity claim, a court must first identify the constitutional or statutory right at stake and then determine if that right was clearly established at the time the defendants violated those rights … Because plaintiff pled a valid constitutional right he has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. It must next be determined if that right was “clearly established.”

Lichtenstein v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.

316 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2018

"The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." Id. at 1866 . … of controlling authority in our jurisdiction or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts of Appeals [that] could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Wilson v. Jean

145 F. Supp. 3d 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

The Supreme Court teaches qualified immunity protects Defendant Officers from liability “when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights’ a reasonable official, similarly situated, .would … on video and admitted by him is not clearly established.

Miller v. Wenerowicz

135 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2015

Once a defendant properly raises the defense of qualified- immunity, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of overcoming that defense by showing that the defendant violated the plaintiffs clearly established right. … But, as indicated above, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must cite to cases or other law that recognize a clearly established right of a prisoner to have his marriage request promptly approved

Fowler v. Nicholas

522 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1981

Thus, the court in Woods has included in the defense of qualified immunity the duty to know clearly settled rights. … Therefore, the qualified-immunity defense is irrelevant to this claim.

Marley v. City of Allentown

774 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1991

A government official asserting qualified immunity must establish that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established at the time it was taken.’”