Case law

Detz v. Hoover

539 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 1982

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), established the proposition that township supervisors are not entitled to good faith immunity from a § 1983 suit. … Curry, 409 U.S. 1042 , 93 S.Ct. 529 , 34 L.Ed.2d 492 (1973) (qualified governmental immunity for alderman).

Savage v. Judge

644 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants next contend that they are immune from damage claims brought under Section 1983 by reason of qualified immunity. (Doc. … “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.” Id. at *4, 2005 U.S. Dist.

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.

Nelson v. Mattern

844 F. Supp. 216 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1994

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity depends on the reasonableness of the conclusion that the force used was not excessive.

Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien, and Frankel

792 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1992

in its immunity analysis whether defendants violated a clearly established right in confessing judgment, and should have considered "the validity of the underlying confessed judgment.” … The point is not material, however, to whether defendants enjoy qualified immunity. 4 .

GUERRIER v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2021

and Commonwealth Defendants consented, therefore establishing federal jurisdiction by consenting to litigate in a federal forum. … App’x. 47, 48 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding a Pennsylvania State Trooper sued in his official capacity qualified for Eleventh Amendment immunity).

McAndrew v. Bucks County Board of Commissioners

982 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2013

Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply Qualified immunity “shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … The qualified immunity inquiry focuses on whether the right is clearly established such that a “reasonable person” would have known that the person’s actions violated the constitution or a statute.

Proudfoot v. Williams

803 F. Supp. 1048 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1992

Qualified immunity insulates state actors from liability if they could have reasonably believed that the action was constitutionally valid in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … Because defendant Witman did not act with an improper motive and because he did not violate clearly established legal principles, he is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity and judgment will be entered in his favor

Geist v. Ammary

40 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

Qualified immunity is intended to shield government *483 officials performing discretionary functions, including police officers, “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … If one part of the analysis is met, then qualified immunity may be available. See id. at 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (finding that qualified immunity available because no violation of clearly established law). .

In Re City of Philadelphia Litigation

849 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1994

The court concluded that there was no “clearly established law” to lead to the conclusion that such a “burnout” as a means of forcing a fugitive out would violate the constitutional right of that person, that is, the fugitive … In their answers, the defendants asserted affirmative defenses which included qualified immunity.

Witter v. Pennsylvania National Guard

462 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1978

Nothing in this chapter shall excuse noncompliance with any statute or ordinance of a State or political subdivision thereof establishing greater or additional rights or protections than the rights and protections established … Furthermore, the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, as defined in Edelman v.

Daryl v. Boyd

881 F. Supp. 171 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1995

Boyd has chosen to counter Cook’s, claims here by arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Though qualified immunity is meant to protect “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,” Malley v.

Bliss v. Allentown Public Library

534 F. Supp. 356 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 1982

’s immunity. … Finally, the court order establishing the library clearly intended that the two entities, the Library and the School District, would maintain separate identities.

Lynch v. City of Philadelphia

166 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2001

Public officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which … The main issue regarding the Defendant’s claim is whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established. “ ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently

Rhodes v. Weinberger

388 F. Supp. 437 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1975

It would seem that defendant’s admission is insufficient to meet the criterion of mootness established by United States v. W. T. Grant, 345 U.S. 629 , 73 S.Ct. 894 , 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953). … Mandamus clearly lies to compel the Secretary to cease enforcing an unconstitutional statute. Richardson v. U.

McHenry v. Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

50 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1999

The Supreme Court has explained what it means by clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing … If the actions of the government official, as alleged by the plaintiff, do not even rise to a level of a-constitutional violation, then that official is clearly entitled to qualified immunity.

Chocallo v. Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, SSA

548 F. Supp. 1349 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1982

Qualified Immunity As to defendant Trachtenberg, the Director of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, a defense of qualified immunity applies to bar plaintiff’s claims for damages arising out of the performance of his duties … Thus, if the affidavit of Trachtenberg establishes that he acted in good faith, in accordance with the above definition, he is entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity.

Hawk v. Brosha

590 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1984

or to qualified good faith immunity. … light of clearly established law.

Howard v. Chester Cnty. Office of Juvenile Prob.

365 F. Supp. 3d 562 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2019

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 *573 person would have … established" so as to deprive Defendants of qualified immunity.

Whittington v. Vaughn

289 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2003

The Commonwealth defendants, as state officials, are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability in § 1983 suits unless there has been a constitutional violation of a clearly established right. Conn v.