Case law

Fialkowski v. Shapp

405 F. Supp. 946 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1975

The Court then expanded this “qualified good faith immunity doctrine” in Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S. Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). … A compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot

Estate of Tyler ex rel. Floyd v. Grossman

108 F. Supp. 3d 279 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2015

“In light of the Supreme Court’s ‘quite sparing’ recognition of absolute immunity,” the Third Circuit “begin[s] with the presumption that qualified rather than absolute immunity is appropriate.” … Otherwise, the immunity is qualified, which “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Frederick L. v. Department of Public Welfare

157 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2001

As such, the Third Circuit determined in Christy that Eleventh Amendment immunity should be analyzed as an affirmative defense to be established by the party raising it. See id. … Thus, while the States are generally immune from suit brought by private individuals, there are three well-established exceptions to the bar. First, the States may consent to suit, waiving their immunity.

Weinerman v. City of Philadelphia

785 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1992

These statutory provisions establish worker’s compensation liability, and thus immunity from a worker’s personal injury suit, for the specified contractors or employers unless the primarily liable subcontractor, or hiring … Section 3.1.1 of the contract clearly establishes that A & J was the contractor under the terms of the agreement which was in effect when Wein-erman was injured. 3 .

Molina v. City of Lancaster

159 F. Supp. 2d 813 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2001

When evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, the Court must determine if a constitutional violation has occurred, and then determine whether it was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Wilson v. … New Jersey State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 484 (3d Cir.1995) (stating clearly established right to be free from arrest without probable cause). Therefore, the police officers in this case do not have qualified immunity.

Souders v. Kroboth

547 F. Supp. 187 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1982

Having pleaded the qualified immunity defense, the defendant parole officers are imbued with immunity provided they establish that they acted in good faith. Thompson v. Burke, 556 F.2d 231, 239 (3d Cir. 1977). … Accordingly, since the test for qualified immunity is an objective one, I conclude that defendants have established the defense.

Page Ex Rel. Page v. School District of Philadelphia

45 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1999

Official Immunity The individual school district defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity to the plaintiffs’ claims under § 1983, as well as argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the merits of the … The individual defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Clifton v. Robinson

500 F. Supp. 30 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 1980

Although defendants have not answered the complaint, their motion raises a defense of qualified good faith immunity to plaintiffs’ claims. … Qualified immunity would not be available to defendants if, “based on all the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time of the action, on which liability is sought to be based,” Schuerer v.

Pitner v. Murrin

812 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2008

Qualiñed Immunity The principles governing claims of qualified immunity are well-established. … “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

Phillips v. Heydt

197 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2002

Mayor Heydt is not entitled to immunity Public officials may raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as a shield from liability for their official actions unless those actions violate “clearly established statutory … 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

United States v. Pennsylvania State Police

548 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1982

This affidavit fails to establish that defendant Price is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Thus, defendant Price is not now entitled to summary judgment on the basis of a defense of qualified immunity. II.

Price v. City of Philadelphia

239 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2017

He also argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because his constitutional rights were clearly established, id. at 22-23 , and that he is entitled to punitive damages, id. at 15-17 . … “[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 would have

Donaldson v. Hovanec

473 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1979

“As Navarette makes clear, the immunity defense should not be rejected if at the time that the act was committed there was no clearly established constitutional right and there was no malicious intention to deprive the plaintiff … Therefore, it is clear that in 1975, decedent Donaldson did not have a clearly established constitutional right to be subject to the provisions of Rule 51 A(l)(c), involving a custodial arrest, only when the procedures established

Mohammed Ex Rel. Mohammed v. School District of Philadelphia

355 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2005

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” 50 Since the Court has already determined that the facts here … A.96-6039, 1997 WL 411205 , at *3 (E.D.Pa. *788 July 27, 1997) (“Public school officials are entitled to qualified immunity against constitutional claims when their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or

Rourke v. United States

744 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1989

In these motions to dismiss the complaint, the remaining individual defendants contend that they are absolutely immune from personal liability for the state law torts asserted in Counts I thru V and enjoy qualified immunity … Clearly, the same conduct which this Court concludes is discretionary for purposes of establishing immunity from state law tort claims will likewise be discretionary for purposes of determin *103 ing whether the United States

Africa v. City of Philadelphia

910 F. Supp. 212 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1995

This grant of summary judgment was based exclusively on the conclusion that Goode was entitled to qualified immunity. … The rulings merely grant Goode qualified immunity on the personal capacity claims, a decision that does not affect the City’s liability.

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice v. Castille

66 F. Supp. 3d 633 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2014

Specifically, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was held to guarantee the rights of citizens of one state who establish residency in another state to access “the same privileges and immunities … repetitive bar exam, and it categorically disqualifies Plaintiffs and otherwise qualified and experienced attorneys from eleven states from- the identical privilege and immunity.”

White v. City of Philadelphia

118 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2000

Because qualified immunity turns on whether a constitutional right was clearly established, the threshold inquiry is whether plaintiffs allege a cognizable constitutional injury. See, e.g., Sharrar v. … Failure to establish a constitutional violation clearly entitles the Officers to qualified immunity. See In re City of Philadelphia Litig., 158 F.3d 711, 719 (3d Cir.1998).

Crighton v. Schuylkill County

882 F. Supp. 411 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1995

seek dismissal on the grounds of qualified immunity for Warden Kurtz, and in a footnote, for the other individual defendants as well. … Because the Court is not satisfied that Defendants have shown that the “offending” conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known, at this time, the Court rejects

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.