Case law

Wilson v. Dewees

977 F. Supp. 2d 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2013

Qualified Immunity Finally, Officer Brockway argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claims. (Defs.’ Mot. 18-20.) … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers and other government officials “from liability for civil *461 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Gregory v. Chehi

654 F. Supp. 670 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1987

Although the defendants enjoy a qualified immunity from liability for actions taken within the scope of their authority, Sourbeer v. … Robinson, 791 F.2d 1094 (3d Cir.1986), they may be held liable if their actions violate clearly established constitutional limitations. Id. at 1103 .

Dudosh v. Warg

668 F. Supp. 944 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1987

Qualified Immunity. The defendants next urge that we reconsider our decision that they are not entitled to qualified immunity as to the plaintiff’s equal protection claim. … As to the municipal defendant’s assertion that it is allowed to assert a “form” of qualified immunity, we reject this argument as well.

Muhammad v. Hilbert

906 F. Supp. 267 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1995

Furthermore, Defendant argues that she is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 , 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (if plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendant does not bear burden of proving qualified

Alexander v. Polk

572 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1983

The City asserts that the assessment of any damages against individual defendants 27 is barred by qualified immunity. … While there is no qualified immunity for the City or for municipal officials acting in their official capacity, there is a qualified immunity for these officials in their personal capacity. Owen v.

Wertheimer v. Frank

206 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1962

The court does not wish to indicate that all the facts stated above as not being established or as being disputed must be established in every case in which a motion for summary judgment is made on the ground of charitable … immunity.

Ricci v. State Board of Law Examiners

427 F. Supp. 611 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1977

Ricci is qualified to be admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. … The classification established by Rule 9 A(2) is rationally related to the state’s valid state interest.

ARDO v. PAGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2023

Ardo were clearly established at the time of occurrence. … Clearly Established Prong Moving on to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court must now consider whether law pertaining to the allegedly violated right “was clearly established

Litton RCS, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

376 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 1974

The Commission’s reliance on the state law doctrine of sovereign immunity belies any argument that the Board of Arbitration of Claims Act clearly and expressly precludes private arbitration. 18 *589 The remaining issues concern … The members shall be appointed for terms of two, four, and six years, and shall serve until their respective successors shall be duly appointed and qualified.

MFS, INC. v. Dilazaro

771 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2011

Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity On All Federal Claims The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … . *449 In resolving claims of qualified immunity, a court must decide: 1) whether the facts alleged or shown by plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and 2) whether that right was clearly established at

Gulati v. Zuckerman

723 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1989

The decision most clearly on point is Becker v. Philco Corp., 372 F.2d 771 (4th Cir.1967). … Moreover, these acts clearly involve the exercise of discretion. They thus are of the sort that “the threat of liability [can] detrimentally inhibit,” Westfall, 108 S.Ct. at 584 , and merit the protection of immunity.

Hall Laboratories, Inc. v. Millar Bros. & Co.

152 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1957

the connection such person has with such product, as for example, ‘Prepared for * * ” In Establishment No. 261, where products are packed under the name of someone other than Millar or Engelhorn, the label bears the qualifying … This motion may also be viewed in terms of Engelhorn waiving its immunity from service of process in this judicial district. In Neirbo Co. v.

Darby v. L. G. De Felice & Son, Inc.

94 F. Supp. 535 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1950

The court reached that conclusion by pointing out certain provisions in the Act of 1937 which in its opinion clearly indicated an intent on the part of the state legislature to create a separate and distinct legal entity. … The court further stated in 34 F.Supp. at page 29 : “In addition, the Pennsylvania State Highway Commission, an agency of the State, existed at the time of the creation of the •defendant Commission, and was qualified *to

Manion v. Sarcione

192 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2001

Defendants also assert absolute and qualified immunity. We accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and draw in plaintiffs favor any reasonable inferences therefrom. Hishon v. … Consequently, we need not decide whether defendants are shielded by absolute or qualified immunity.

Miller v. Beard

699 F. Supp. 2d 697 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2010

Hi No Qualified Immunity for Private Contractors Dr. Fishstein also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages if their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Satterfield v. Borough of Schuylkill Haven

12 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1998

immunity. … We have no trouble finding that borough council members qualify as “high public officials” for the purposes of immunity from defamation.

Johnson v. Miller

925 F. Supp. 334 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 1996

Next, both defendants argue that they are entitled to judicial immunity. In their answer, they did not raise judicial immunity, instead, they raised qualified immunity as their only affirmative defense. … Judicial immunity, like qualified immunity, is an immunity from suit, not just from damages. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 , 112 S.Ct. 286, 288 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam).

Burton v. City of Philadelphia

121 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2000

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 … As such, they are immune from liability as individuals.

Davis v. Philadelphia County

195 F. Supp. 2d 686 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2002

These actions were clearly undertaken in Judge Richette’s official capacity, and, thus, Judge Richette has absolute judicial immunity from any suit arising from the actions of which Plaintiff complains. … However, Plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 claim against these attorneys because a court-appointed defense attorney does not qualify as a state actor for § 1983 purposes. See Hull v. Mallon, No.

Posner v. Lankenau Hospital

645 F. Supp. 1102 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1986

Parker Immunity Defendants assert that they are immune from federal antitrust liability pursuant to the “state action” immunity doctrine, which was first enunciated in Parker v. … The Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act provides members of hospital peer review committees with qualified immunity from civil liability. 63 P.S. § 425.3(b)(1).