Case law

Cooper v. City of Chester

810 F. Supp. 618 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1992

Qualified immunity is available only if the defendants can show that "reasonable officials in the defendants’ position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported … Such a qualified immunity claim cannot withstand plaintiff’s allegation that these officers deliberately arrested the wrong man, since it is long established that an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment

Thompson v. Montemuro

383 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1974

Public officials are not immune simply because they operate in a discretionary situation; they may be held liable when they act in bad faith or in a manner which is arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable. … Of this immunity the Supreme Court recently has stated: [A] qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of Government, the variation dependent upon the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the

DiJoseph v. City of Philadelphia

947 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1996

The next step is determining whether the alleged conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … I hold that qualified immunity applies to this ease, and therefore will grant summary judgment on this claim. 2.

Chase Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board

269 F. Supp. 965 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 1967

seeks, among other things, a preliminary injunction to prevent Board from giving effect to its Order No. 20,347 permitting the co-defendant, Liberty Federal Savings and Loan Association (hereinafter called “Liberty”) to establish … However, the words “this Act” clearly refer to the “Home Owners Loan Act of 1933” 4 in view of the first sentence of § 101(a) of P.L. 89-695, and plaintiff has submitted no information in either of its briefs (Documents 10

Pelzer v. City of Philadelphia

656 F. Supp. 2d 517 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2009

Qualified immunity Officer Burton argues that even if the court determined his actions violated Pelzer's constitutional rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity and the plaintiffs claim should be dismissed. … The doctrine of 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

Smalls v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

683 F. Supp. 120 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1988

In support of the negligence claim plaintiffs allege that the EPA was negligent in (i) entrusting Graves with the removal, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste when it knew or should have known that he was not qualified … The exception bars suits which challenge an administrator’s decision to initiate programs and activities as well as shielding decisions made as to how to implement or establish such plans. Dalehite v.

Griffin v. Harris

480 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1979

immunity has been waived. … Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, stated: [Wjhen Congress establishes such an agency, authorizes it to engage in commercial and business transactions with the public, and permits it to “sue and be sued,” it cannot be

Muhammad ex rel. J.S. v. Abington Township Police Department

37 F. Supp. 3d 746 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2014

YAP program “did not violate clearly established law.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). For that reason, he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. See Reichle v. … There is no need to reach the defendants’ qualified immunity argument as to this claim, but I note that qualified immunity would not apply.

Cook v. Smith

812 F. Supp. 561 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1993

Common Pleas Court of Lehigh County, 515 F.Supp. 1074, 1076 (E.D.Pa.1981), the court stated that a court reporter’s qualified immunity shields her from suit when she acts pursuant to “lawful authority or follows a judge’s … Defendant’s actions are clearly within her general subject matter jurisdiction and responsibilities as a court reporter.

Graham v. United States

528 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1981

The Special Agent’s role in the events complained of appears to be investigative, and thus gives rise to only a qualified immunity. 2. … Qualified Immunity Defendants’ third immunity argument is that qualified immunity insulates the Special Agent from this lawsuit. The qualified-immunity defense, as propounded in Wood v.

Owens v. City of Philadelphia

6 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1998

Qualified Immunity: Murphy also raises qualified immunity as a bar to. this suit. … Qualified Immunity. Nor, on this record, are Lewis, Robinson, and Russell entitled to qualified immunity.

Cornell Companies, Inc. v. Borough of New Morgan

512 F. Supp. 2d 238 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2007

In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he or she is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the statute; ( … Cornell has clearly pled business misconduct.

Bell v. Township of Concord

759 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2011

“[QJualified 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 … "Second, if the plaintiff has satisfied this first step, the court must decide whether the right at issue was 'clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Cyprus v. Diskin

936 F. Supp. 259 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1996

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that they have qualified immunity for their acts in arresting Cyprus. … A state official is immune to damage claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a reasonable official in his position could have believed that his action or decision was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information

Ruscavage v. Zuratt

821 F. Supp. 1078 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1993

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity from damages for civil rights violations “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity from damages because he acted in bad faith to retaliate against Plaintiff. *1084 D.

District Counsel 33, American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees v. City of Philadelphia

944 F. Supp. 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1995

of lists of qualified candidates to be used to fill vacancies, 351 Pa.Code § 7.7-401(f). … Clearly, Plaintiffs’ unilateral belief that they were qualified and entitled to the promotions is insufficient to establish a constitutionally protected property interest in the promotions. 2 .

Gatter v. Zappile

67 F. Supp. 2d 515 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1999

Although not raised by the defendants, Dan-bach and Williamson have the additional defense of qualified immunity. … Police officers and other government officials have qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 so long as " ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

McHenry v. PA. STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUC.

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.

M.B. v. Schuylkill Cnty.

375 F. Supp. 3d 574 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2019

Hoke is insulated by qualified immunity. … "To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was 'clearly established

Platt v. Brockenborough

476 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2007

.is clearly established). … Defendants have not raised a qualified immunity defense, and this Court may not raise it for them. Harlow v.