Case law

King v. Timmoney

263 F. Supp. 2d 977 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2003

Moreover, “[t]he pre *981 sumption is that qualified rather than absolute immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties. … Moreover, the Third Circuit has found that absolute immunity does not extend to allegations that a district attorney’s office failed to establish proper training, supervision and discipline policies which would reduce the

D.M. ex rel. J.M. v. County of Berks

27 F. Supp. 3d 594 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2014

Qualified Immunity Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under 42 1J.S.C. § 1983 so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … While district court precedent “may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified immunity analysis,” that is only in “the absence of binding precedent in this circuit.” Doe v.

Dennis v. DeJong

867 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2011

of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct. … Qualified immunity will be upheld on a motion to dismiss “only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas, 463 F.3d at 291 (internal quotations omitted).

Katzenmoyer v. City of Reading, PA

158 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2001

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.” Kruzits v. … There are at least three ways to establish the existence of policy or custom.

D'IORIO v. County of Delaware

447 F. Supp. 229 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1978

They should only have a qualified immunity for these functions. See generally Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975); Scheuer v. … In addition, the qualified as well as the absolute immunity applies only to prosecutors when they are sued in their individual capacity for damages.

Pearson v. Vaughn

102 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2000

Qualiñed Immunity Defendant Murray argues that he is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … “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

Nelson v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

244 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2002

Before weighing in on the contentious question of whether Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity, it is prudent to ask first whether plaintiff qualifies for relief under this provision of the ADA. … In the Chief Judge's opinion, "the ordinary meanings of `activity' and `program' clearly encompass those that take place in prisons." Id.

Weston v. City of Philadelphia

82 F. Supp. 3d 637 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2015

Immunity of Savoy The City Defendants argue that, in the event that the Court were to find that there was a constitutional violation, Savoy is nevertheless immune from suit. We agree. … While the Court of Appeals has not clearly defined when situations fall within these categories, in B.S. the court expanded the immunity granted in Ernst and has held that a social worker’s investigative activities performed

De Botton v. Marple Township

689 F. Supp. 477 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1988

Are the Individual Defendants entitled to Immunity? Municipal legislators are absolutely immune from civil rights damages actions, provided that they are acting in their legislative capacities. Aitchison v. … Thornburg Township, 839 F.2d 151 (3d.Cir.1988) (township supervisor entitled to qualified immunity in connection with conduct regarding proposed subdivision plan).

Mitchell v. W.S. Cumby & Son, Inc.

704 F. Supp. 65 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1989

These facts clearly establish that Cumby controlled or occupied the premises. … This evidence, in combination with the contractual evidence, clearly establishes that Cumby entrusted part of its regular business to RVS.

Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

912 F. Supp. 148 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1996

They argued that there was insufficient evidence to permit the district court to find a material issue of fact that they participated in the alleged beating and that therefore, they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Here, Movants base their request on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit because there is no evidence that they participated in any discriminatory conduct.

FANTAUZZI v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2019

The Department of Corrections is immune to claims for damages in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, and its above-named officials “share[] in the Commonwealth’s Eleventh Amendment Immunity.”?? … Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 367 (3d Cir. 2012) (confirming even an unsentenced inmate “had a clearly established constitutional right to have prison officials protect him from inmate violence.”). 17 See id.

Taha v. Bucks County Pennsylvania

367 F. Supp. 3d 320 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2019

Pa. 2016) ("It is well-established that a party's failure to argue an issue on summary judgment constitutes a waiver of that issue."). … Nevertheless, in Section 9183(b)(2) the General Assembly clearly expressed its purpose of imposing punitive damages on a per-violation basis.

Hansberry v. City of Philadelphia

232 F. Supp. 2d 404 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2002

Defendants’ Claims of Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that plaintiffs’ claims against the individual officers are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … If the plaintiff fails to make out a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity inquiry is at an end; the officer is entitled to immunity.” Bennett v. Murphy, 274 F.3d 133, 136 (3d Cir.2002).

Hynson v. City of Chester

731 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1990

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the particularized right at issue here did not become clearly established until the Third Circuit’s decision in Hynson. … Under these circumstances, summary judgment in favor of the individual officers on qualified immunity grounds is appropriate. C.

Maybanks v. Ingraham

378 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 1974

brief concurring opinion joined by Justice Marshall, stressed his agreement “with the Court’s conclusion that existence of the requisite amount in controversy is not, on this record, clearly established. … Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and they are clearly entitled to relief.” 412 U. S. at 516 , 93 S.Ct. at 2228 .

Agresta v. Goode

797 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1992

Even if defendants Lillie and Soltz are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity. … A defense of qualified immunity, however, cannot be successfully asserted on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Black v.

Carter v. Kane

938 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 1996

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds of (i) qualified immunity and (ii) the recent decision of Sandin v. Conner, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). … As to the qualified immunity question, as Judge Welsh’s R & R notes, R & R at 4, my 1993 memorandum found that Kane was not entitled to qualified immunity because Wolff’s requirement of an impartial hearing examiner was clearly

Merit v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority

276 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2003

Defendant next contends that Plaintiffs ADA and PHRA claims should be dismissed because she cannot establish that she is disabled. 2 The ADA prohibits employment discrimination against a “qualified individual with a disability … “It is well established that SEPTA is an agency of the Commonwealth [of Pennsylvania] and as such is afforded all of the sovereign immunity protections enumerated in sections 8521 through 8526.” Frazier v.

Prewitt v. Walgreens Co.

92 F. Supp. 3d 292 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2015

Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff first has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination: 1) he is at least 40 years of age; 2) he was .qualified for his job; 3) he suffered an adverse employment … The Plaintiff Has Established a Prima Facie Case As the defendant admits, the first two parts of the case are easily met: the plaintiff is over age 40 and he was qualified to work as a pharmacist. 108 It is also clear that