Case law

Mazur v. Merck & Co., Inc.

767 F. Supp. 697 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1991

The second suggestion, one that was adopted by all of the participants at the meeting, was to lobby for the establishment of a no-fault compensation fund for children injured as a result of immunizations. … The October 1, 1980, Important Information Statement, the one used in the 1981-82 immunization drive, carefully and clearly describes the grave dangers which could result from measles, mumps, and rubella.

Willowby Ex Rel. McKoy v. City of Philadelphia

946 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1996

Qualified Immunity The United States Supreme Court provided the current standard for “good faith” or “qualified” immunity in Harlow v. … The defendant officers do not merit qualified immunity here.

Neely v. Eshelman

507 F. Supp. 78 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1981

Even if Neely had stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, defend *82 ants would be entitled to summary judgment because of their qualified good faith immunity. … Where employees of the parole board engage in duties which are administrative rather than adjudicative in nature, they are entitled to qualified good faith immunity from suit for their actions. Thompson v.

Sarin v. Magee

333 F. Supp. 3d 475 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2018

Although the concepts of Eleventh Amendment immunity and sovereign immunity are sometimes treated as interchangeable, in fact sovereign immunity applies more broadly. Lombardo v. Pennsylvania, Dep't of Pub. … Int'l , 135 F.3d 876 , 890 (3d Cir. 1998), the Supreme Court has yet to find a case that qualifies. See Kelly v. Jones, 148 F.Supp.3d 395 , 405 n.2 (E.D.

Ekwunife v. City of Philadelphia

245 F. Supp. 3d 660 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2017

“Ultimately, whether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity depends on whether she establishes that she was functioning as the state’s ‘advocate’ while engaging in the alleged conduct that gives rise to the constitutional … In Buckley, the Supreme Court found that a prosecutor’s alleged fabrication of false evidence during the preliminary investigation of an unsolved crime was protected only by qualified immunity, not absolute immunity.

United States v. Cianciulli

482 F. Supp. 585 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1979

For example: Ladies and gentlemen, those who cooperated were immunized. Those who changed their testimony were immunized. … Yet they came in and they got immunity. It doesn’t make sense.

Davis v. Smith

126 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1954

Clearly, the Olberding and Neirbo cases are entirely consistent. … In the latter case the court stated, 212 Miss, at page 350, 54 So.2d at page 478 : “ * * * Clearly the McLaurin case [McLaurin v.

Santiago v. City of Philadelphia

435 F. Supp. 136 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1977

The Supreme Court clearly held in Pierson v. … violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Smith v. School District of Philadelphia

112 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2000

McMonagle, 670 F.Supp. 1300, 1308 (E.D.Pa.1987) (noting that “attempts to persuade another to action are clearly within the scope of the First Amendment”). … Defendant Avi Barr, as a teacher at Carver, and defendant Steven Miller, as an Assistant Principal at Carver, do not qualify as high public officials for purposes of this common law immunity doctrine.

Henry v. Schlesinger

407 F. Supp. 1179 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1976

Sovereign Immunity. … In the present case, there is nothing comparable to § 1982 unless the Executive Order in question could so qualify. We have held above that it does not.

United States v. Shober

489 F. Supp. 412 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1980

We felt that defendants had at least taken a first step in the direction of establishing the basis for an order of judicial immunity, but found and concluded that the testimony of counsel for one witness and the communication … , clearly essential, to the defense.

Charlie's Dream, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

30 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1998

Qualified Immunity Defense The individual defendants argue that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their conduct was reasonable as a matter of law in light of clearly established law at the time of the … incident entitling them to qualified immunity on the claims of Charlie’s Dream.

Sottosanti-Mack v. Reinhart

173 F. Supp. 3d 94 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2016

Qualified Immunity as to Mr. Reinhart. … Reinhart is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

Avellino v. Herron

991 F. Supp. 722 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1997

Qualified Immunity 29. … clearly established; and (2) second, *729 under the clearly established law, whether a reasonable public official could have believed that his conduct was.lawful.

Vanderklok v. United States

142 F. Supp. 3d 356 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2015

immunity. … Since TSA screeners clearly cannot seize evidence or make arrests, see Walcott v. United States, 2013 WL 5708044 , at *3 (E.D.N.Y.

Estate of Smith v. Marasco

227 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2002

qualified immunity. … There is no need to *359 consider defendants’ alternative qualified immunity argument since plaintiffs have failed to establish the Equal Protection claim.

United States v. Frumento

409 F. Supp. 136 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1976

The Government’s response to this motion states that the grand jury was informed of the grant of immunity to Mr. … We will not authorize a blatant “fishing expedition” to establish evidence of prejudice where none is known, or reasonably expected, to exist. Id. at 421 .

Mazur v. Merck & Co., Inc.

742 F. Supp. 239 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1990

Merck argues that neither man is qualified to give such an opinion. … Nonetheless, both doctors are fully qualified as experts in their chosen fields.

Zolk v. Mobil Oil Corp.

510 F. Supp. 814 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1981

. § 52, and is therefore immune from liability other than as provided in the Act, 77 P.S. § 481. … The court then listed five elements essential to a determination that an entity qualifies as a statutory employer within Section 203: *816 (1) An employer who is under contract with an owner ... (2) Premises occupied by or

Baur v. Crum

882 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that as government employees, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs constitutional claims. … The two-step analysis for qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right and, if so, whether it was a clearly established constitutional right. Saucier v.