Case law

Kepner v. Houstoun

164 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2001

Said defendants also claim qualified immunity. The plaintiffs rely on the state-created danger theory of liability. … Because we are dismissing all federal claims, we need not decide the issue of qualified immunity.

Avins v. Hannum

497 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1980

Its sole purpose was to declare to the several States, that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify, or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither … However, the cases clearly establish that substantiality is determined on the face of the pleadings, not upon the evidence which will ultimately be introduced at trial. Tully v.

Jordan

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2026

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Jd (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). … “‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

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, defendants *82 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.

Watson v. Methacton School District

513 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2007

It is the burden of the individual defendants to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Ryan v. … qualified immunity.

Safeguard Mutual Insurance Company v. Miller

333 F. Supp. 822 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 1971

Glasner, 274 F.Supp. 11 (C.D.Cal.1967), the court took the position that “to hold that the [public official involved] or anyone in a similar position is required to establish his good faith in a court after his activity was … He then concluded: “ * * * Hence I take it as a roughly accurate generalization that * * * officers not in the exceptional category of officers having complete immunity, would have a qualified privilege, giving them a defense

Parks

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2026

Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014) (“Our qualified-immunity cases illustrate the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even . . . [on] the clearly-established prong of the standard.”). … The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that the qualified immunity inquiry demands a “high ‘degree of specificity’” and that courts may not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality,” which

Northeast Jet Center, Ltd. v. Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority

767 F. Supp. 672 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 1991

The defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss. … Defendants also seek dismissal on grounds of nonspecificity; lack of custom or policy; and qualified immunity for the individual defendants.

Newsome v. Sielaff

375 F. Supp. 1189 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 10, 1974

Plaintiff’s allegations of medical treatment denial, which are supported by an uncontroverted affidavit, are, therefore, clearly sufficient to establish a claim for relief on the basis of “cruel and unusual punishment.” 5 … Instead, the reference to his non-coverage by immunity seems de *1192 signed only to distinguish the warden from the other GaMo defendants, all of whom were clearly immune under decisions of this Court or of the Supreme Court

Douris v. Dougherty

192 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2002

Eynon and Skerle, who are parking enforcement officers for the Borough of Doylestown, prosecuted them for parking at expired meters despite purportedly “knowing the parking enforcement policy and practice was contrary to clearly … Under Title II, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be

Bey v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

98 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2000

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, prison officials are generally immune from suit "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … However, with regard to plaintiff's claims of excessive force, the defense of qualified immunity is not implicated because the right to be free of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the incident. 29 .

Powelton Civic Home Owners Ass'n Ex Rel. Hilburn Harbidge v. Department of Housing & Urban Development

284 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1968

Additionally, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority is clearly not an indispensable party in this action. … The plaintiffs seek to establish a procedural right in this case.

Doe v. Borough of Clifton Heights

719 F. Supp. 382 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 1989

immunity. … Qualified immunity is available unless the official “knew or reasonably should have known” that his actions would violate the plaintiffs rights. Harlow v.

Eisenberg v. Mathews

420 F. Supp. 1274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1976

“[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of Government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the office and all the circumstances … It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good-faith belief, that affords a basis for qualified immunity of executive officers for acts

Savage v. Com. of Pennsylvania

475 F. Supp. 524 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1979

Clearly, the Commonwealth must be dismissed as a party. Equally clearly, so must the LCB. As I noted in Flesch v. Eastern Pa. … ’s understanding that its sovereign immunity and, a fortiori, its eleventh amendment immunity, extend to the LCB.

Rumph v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund

964 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 8, 1997

Because the Court finds that Defendants qualify for Eleventh Amendment immunity and because Plaintiff has failed to establish any element necessary to prove his due process claim, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for … The Workmen’s Compensation Act clearly affords claimants extensive procedures for review by worker’s compensation judges, the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, and the state’s judiciary.

Wright v. Columbia University

520 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1981

Clearly, Columbia has consistently represented to plaintiff that the University as a whole, not the limited entity of the athletic program, was the official decisionmaker. … A hearing would then have to be scheduled to establish the facts adduced here today and Columbia, already concerned about undue delay, would be ill served by such a technical victory.

Simpson v. Horn

80 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2000

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted based on their right to qualified immunity from monetary damages. … As I stated in my 1998 opinion, prohibition on racial segregation in cell assignments is a clearly established right of which a reasonable prison official would be aware, and thus did not give rise to qualified immunity.

Daves v. Scranton

66 F.R.D. 5 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1975

Under these standards plaintiff’s complaint is clearly frivolous. … the Evening Bulletin, it is “unlikely that appellant, who has adduced no specific facts tending to show that he did not commit the crimes mentioned in defendant’s article, could surmount either the defense of truth, or of qualified

United States Ex Rel. Smith v. Robinson

495 F. Supp. 696 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1980

immunity. … immunity question as a matter of law.