Case law

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.

Petrichko v. Kurtz

117 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2000

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ contention that they are entitled to qualified immunity is not supported by the law or the facts. … Therefore, I conclude that defendants are not entitled to immunity from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 5.

Isajewicz v. Bucks County Department of Communications

851 F. Supp. 161 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1994

An official may be entitled to qualified immu nity if it is shown that the allegedly unlawful action does not violate laws that were clearly established at the time of the conduct. Anderson v. … Therefore, Kostmayer did not violate a clearly estab­lished constitutional or statutory right and is entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Williams v. Lehigh Department of Corrections

79 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1999

Also, Warden Sweeney and Director Klotz seek a ruling of qualified immunity. To the extent that these defendants are sued in their official capacities, qualified immunity does not protect them. See, e.g., W.B. v. … Similarly, as to any suit against the officials in their individual capacities, the Third Circuit has explained that the "defense of qualified official immunity ... is inapplicable to claims for prospective relief.”

Sullivan v. Warminster Township

765 F. Supp. 2d 687 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2011

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields municipal employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”).

Campbell v. City of Philadelphia

927 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity The defendants next argue that even if they did use excessive force they are entitled to qualified immunity. Def. MSJ at 26. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

Mastromatteo v. Simock

866 F. Supp. 853 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1994

Qualified Immunity The United States Supreme Court has noted that government officials, when performing discretionary duties, are entitled to a qualified immunity, one that “shield[s] them from civil damages liability as … Accordingly, a government official will not be immune from a lawsuit if the law violated is one that is clearly established, such that a reasonable official would have known he was acting in violation of it. Good v.

Atlee v. Laird

339 F. Supp. 1347 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1972

The defendants argued that the House, and the House alone, has the power to determine who is qualified to be a member. … This suit clearly comes within the second exception to the rule of sovereign immunity.

Estate of Arrington v. Michael

914 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2012

An officer who violates a constitutional right may not avail himself of qualified immunity if the “right was clearly established, such that ‘it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in … The relevant constitutional right was clearly established as of July 2009.

Ascolese v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

925 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1996

Van de Beek’s Right to Qualified Immunity Finally, van de Beek argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity as to Ascolese’s section 1983 claim. … SEPTA’s motion for summary judgment as to van de Beek’s qualified immunity is DENIED. 4.

Schieber v. City of Philadelphia

156 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 2001

Qualified Immunity The standard for determining whether the affirmative defense of qualified immunity applies is well-established. … Summary judgment will not be granted on the basis of qualified immunity. F.

Cohen v. Oasin

863 F. Supp. 225 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 1994

Oasin enjoys, at most, only a qualified immunity, and is therefore not immune from the lawsuit. Mr. … Oasin with an absolute immunity from this lawsuit. Mr. Cohen contends that Mr. Oasin is entitled, at most, to qualified immunity. The plaintiff argues that since Mr.

Ballas v. City of Reading

168 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2001

Under Rule 12(c), the court cannot grant judgment on the pleadings “unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … To qualify as legislative, the act in question must be both substantively and procedurally legislative in nature. In re Montgomery County, 215 F.3d 367, 376 (3d Cir.2000).

DeFiore v. Vignola

823 F. Supp. 315 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1993

As a general rule, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct docs not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Vignola has been accused of violating Plaintiff's clearly-established constitutional right to freedom of association, we find that an insufficient basis exists to enter judgment in Defendant’s favor on the qualified immunity

Fortugno v. Trachtenberg

202 F. Supp. 177 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 1962

The plaintiff argued that even admitting the existence of the doctrine of charitable immunity under Pennsylvania law, under the facts in the instant case, defendant does not qualify as a charity entitled to that immunity. … Legislature to abrogate that immunity.

Victory Outreach Center v. Melso

313 F. Supp. 2d 481 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2004

Qualified Immunity The Police Officers also argue that even if White were to establish a violation of his Fourth or First Amendment rights, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields them from liability. … In the context of a claim based on probable cause, qualified immunity shields officers from suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the

Muhammad v. Klotz

36 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 1999

“As government officials engaged in discretionary functions, [defendants are qualifiedly immune from suits brought against them for damages under section 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … As the defendants have asserted a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, Muhammad must show that the defendants’ conduct violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

O.F. Ex Rel. N.S. v. Chester Upland School District

246 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2002

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 To establish a violation of § 504, Plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) O.F. is disabled as defined by the Act; (2) she is “otherwise qualified” to participate in school activities … The ADA clearly states Congress’ intent to hold states liable for violations of the ADA. 8 See Lavia, 224 F.3d at 196.

Burton v. Peartree

326 F. Supp. 755 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 1971

United States are immune from suit. … Consequently, these defendants are also immune from suit. Burton commenced this action against forty-four named defendants. All of the defendants, however, are immune from suit under the Civil Rights Acts.

Parker v. Carroll

6 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1998

Second, the officer defendants argue that they are entitled to summary *429 judgment on the Parkers’ claims because they have qualified immunity. … The officer defendants have not established that their conduct was reasonable as a matter of law in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the