Case law

Schmidt v. Degen

376 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1974

Historically, “[f]ew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction . ” Pierson v. … This decision, built upon the established principle that executive immunity is qualified, does not alter the broad sweep of judicial immunity. As my colleague, Judge VanArtsdalen, recently observed in Cohen v.

Gahagan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

444 F. Supp. 1326 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1978

Nor is the good faith qualified immunity for executive officers properly before us. … Furthermore, Parole Board members and probation officers are entitled to a qualified immunity in which they are immune from suit if they acted in good faith. Id.

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.

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.

Bansal v. Russ

513 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2007

Qualified Immunity Defendants allege the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because Plaintiff can present no evidence that any of the individual Defendants actually committed any of the wrongs alleged … of clearly established rights, the court will deny the claims of qualified immunity with leave to renew once all discovery disputes have been resolved. 4 IV.

Maxwell Ex Rel. Maxwell v. School District of Philadelphia

53 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1999

Section 1983 In her motion to dismiss, defendant Chu asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity on the § 1983 4 claim. Therefore, I must first determine whether she is entitled to that defense. … The qualified immunity defense protects “officials exercising discretionary powers ... from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Hartman v. Bachert

880 F. Supp. 342 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1995

Thus “whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action,” depends both on the “clearly established” legal rules at the time the action was taken, as … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 197 , 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3020 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) (plaintiffs may overcome defendants qualified immunity only by showing that their rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct in issue

Guffey v. Logan

563 F. Supp. 951 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1983

I still conclude that given the circumstances of this case, only one entity qualifies for immunity and that entity is the township. … The short of it is that the squad fails to fully qualify as an employer under the PWCA and thus cannot invoke its immunity. 2 The Rescue Squad also raises some new grounds in their motion for reconsideration.

Sacred Heart Hospital v. Heckler

601 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1984

The Secretary ruled that the DSRFs did not qualify as funded depreciation because they were established with borrowed funds. … The Secretary has now clearly adopted the one applied in this case.

Lawson v. Pennsylvania SPCA

124 F. Supp. 3d 394 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2015

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity defense requires a two-step analysis. Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 786 (3d Cir.2000). … In the section of their brief discussing qualified immunity.

Toth v. Bristol Township

215 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2002

Additionally, DeSilva claims qualified immunity from Plaintiffs claim as there is no clearly established statutory or constitutional right to be free from emergency medical treatment. (Defs.’ … “[W]hen a qualified immunity defense is raised a court first should determine whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all.” Larsen v.

Kauffman v. Osser

321 F. Supp. 327 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1971

Plaintiffs have shown that certain features of P.L. 375 do indeed operate to immunize certain absentee voters from *332 private challenge. … of voters to qualify as competent electors.

Ahmad v. Burke

436 F. Supp. 1307 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1977

Although the question whether a state agency partakes of the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity is clearly a federal question, state law governs the relationship between the agency and the state, and therefore state law … The court drew a distinction between adjudicatory and executive duties, and went on to hold that Board members enjoy absolute “quasi-judicial” immunity while performing adjudicatory duties, but that only qualified “good faith

Michener v. Brady (In Re Brady)

243 B.R. 253 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2000

In hearing such appeals, the district court applies a clearly erroneous standard to the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and a plenary standard to that court’s legal conclusions. … A legal assignment is a transfer of property, a right or interest from one person, the assignor, to another, the assignee, which transfers the entire interest in the thing assigned unless it is qualified. Huff v.

Walker v. Spiller

54 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 1999

Spiller claims in his defense that he had probable cause to arrest Walker and is entitled to qualified immunity on Walker’s claims. … When the defense of qualified immunity is raised, as it has been here, officers “who ‘reasonably but mistakenly’ conclude that their conduct comports with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are entitled to immunity.

Loftus v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

843 F. Supp. 981 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1994

In Kimberlin , the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity were denied by the lower court. See 6 F.3d at 790-91 . … ("Although the Supreme Court has had 'no occasion to consider whether [its] qualified immunity jurisprudence would require a heightened pleading in cases involving government officials,’ the rationale of Leatherman would

Segers v. Williams

12 F. Supp. 3d 734 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2014

immunity. … Fisher, 631 F.2d 1115, 1120 (3d Cir.1980) (“The handling of evidence is clearly within the sweep of ‘initiating and presenting the State’s case’, and the prosecutor is immune from Section 1983 liability for such decisions

United States v. Payment Processing Center, LLC

443 F. Supp. 2d 728 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2006

Leary, 2005 WL 1385142 (D.Del.2005), from which courts may confer “judicially fashioned immunity,” Smith, 615 F.2d at 969 , based on a five-factor test requiring proof of clearly exculpatory defense testimony and the absence … Moreover, this approach recognizes the inherent difficulties created with any grant of immunity, which the Executive is uniquely qualified to .assess.

In Re Grand Jury Investigation

412 F. Supp. 943 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 1976

Accordingly, the five subpoenaed items dated prior to May 25, 1975, are not immune from production as work product. The three remaining items need not be produced. … Nothing falls more clearly within the area protected by the work product doctrine than the legal advice counsel may have given or considered giving a client during ongoing litigation. 1 .

Good v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

914 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1996

Therefore, I find that Westinghouse qualifies as a person within the meaning of the statute. C. … Most often the federal officer’s defense was immunity.