Case law

Buehl v. Lehman

802 F. Supp. 1266 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1992

Defendants have asserted qualified immunity from damages in their individual capacities. … Officials exercising discretionary powers are immune from liability for civil damages for conduct which does not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have been aware.

Montanye v. Wissahickon School District

327 F. Supp. 2d 510 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2004

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “[ojfficials exercising discretionary powers are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id.

Coggins v. Carpenter

468 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1979

corruptly, he is unqualifiedly immune from liability; but if a prosecutor acts in an area where he clearly lacks all jurisdiction over the subject matter, he is not entitled to absolute, unqualified immunity for his conduct … (b) Smith and Shaefer — qualified immunity Smith argues that, to the extent he acted in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Chester County, he is immune from liability because he was acting in good faith and within the scope

Doe v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

871 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1994

This qualified immunity was also extended to persons providing information to professional review bodies. 42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a)(2). … As the immunity section suggests and the weight of case law has clearly established, Congress was not trying to create a cause of action in favor of aggrieved physicians when it passed the HCQI Act.

Hall v. Raech

677 F. Supp. 2d 784 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2010

They also invoke the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that even if plaintiffs evidence is sufficient to show a constitutional violation, the right *791 infringed was not clearly established at the time of the incident … Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “officers performing discretionary functions are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Flohr v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

821 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1993

Clearly, defendant’s evidence establishes that to the representatives of PP & L, the tree appeared to be healthy and normal. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to contradict this simple material fact. … Since the only evidence on the record clearly establishes that the land in question was open to the public and in fact used by the public, defendant is not precluded from asserting the immunity granted by 68 P.S. § 477-1

Long v. Board of Educ. of City of Philadelphia

812 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1993

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “if reasonable officials in the defendants’ position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established … Therefore, Defendant Clayton would be entitled to qualified immunity, notwithstanding this court’s finding that she is not liable under the theory of respondeat superior. c.

SAVAGE v. LEDERER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 2024

Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ … As such, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the undisputed record evidence shows that they did not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right when they stopped and eventually

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.

Frazier v. DiGuglielmo

640 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2008

The question whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation, because “[i]f a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial, then qualified immunity is … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” *601 Mitchell v.

Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology v. Upper Merion Township

270 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials’ conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 316 F.3d at 398. … (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Douris v. Schweiker

229 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2002

Qualified Immunity Having concluded that Plaintiff has stated a Fourth Amendment claim, the Court must determine if Defendant Rauch is entitled to qualified immunity, as he asserts. (Def. Rauch’s Mot. to Dismiss 6-8). … In § 1983 cases alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the question of immunity focuses on whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information

Newkirk v. Sheers

834 F. Supp. 772 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1993

In applying the doctrine of qualified immunity to the facts of a given case, a court must grant immunity to a government official performing discretionary functions “insofar as [her] conduct does not violate clearly established … In some cases, the qualified immunity issue also has rested on “the complementary question of whether defendant had a clearly 'established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v.

Siegel v. Miller

446 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2006

Qualified immunity excuses government officials and employees from standing trial where their conduct “does not violate clearly established-statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If a constitutional violation could be made out based on plaintiffs evidence, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Davis v. Cheltenham Township Police Department

767 F. Supp. 104 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1991

On the facts as alleged, the defense of qualified immunity cannot succeed. … Accepting as true the complaint’s factual allegations, as is required on this motion, defendants’ qualified immunity defense cannot be sustained. 3 V.

Kelsey-Andrews v. City of Philadelphia

713 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1989

Qualified Immunity In support of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defendants’ argue that Liciardello and Doyle are entitled to qualified immunity as police supervisors. … Prockop, 682 F.Supp. 247, 254-55 (D.N.J.1987) (public official not entitled to qualified immunity for alleged acts of sexual harassment occurring in 1983; contours of the law of § 1983 sexual harassment were clearly established

Burkhart v. Saxbe

448 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1978

To enjoy the defense of qualified immunity 33 the defendants must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) they did not know and reasonably need not have known that overhearing the plaintiffs’ conversations … Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) which established only qualified immunity for state executive officials violating civil rights, was improper because defendants in this casé were federal officials

Dennis v. DeJong

953 F. Supp. 2d 568 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2013

Qualified immunity provides immunity from suit instead of merely providing a defense to liability. … conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right....

Bodor v. East Coventry Township

325 F. Supp. 1102 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1971

Clearly, a filing fee which equals approximately ten percent of Plaintiffs’ annual income acts as a bar to their ad *1104 ministrative remedies. … Immunity of Supervisors from Suit. As to the issue of the immunity of the Defendant Supervisors, said Supervisors enjoy a qualified immunity based upon “good faith” performance of their governmental functions.

Duffy v. County of Bucks

7 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1998

*582 accorded qualified immunity. … A reasonable probation officer could not have believed such action was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information allegedly in the officer's possession. Vasquez is not entitled to qualified immunity.