Case law

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.

United States v. Hossbach

518 F. Supp. 759 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1980

These circumstances clearly manifest an abandonment of any claim to the property by the defendants. … Clearly, this is not one of those situations where the crime charged was prospective and speculative at the time the immunized testimony was given.

Eckman v. LANCASTER CITY

742 F. Supp. 2d 638 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2010

Eckman in July 2005, he is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time. Therefore, Ms. Eckman’s case against Sergeant Great-house must be resolved by a jury. … Qualified Immunity Defendant Sergeant Damon Greathouse asserts the defense of 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

Does v. Southeast Delco School District

272 F. Supp. 3d 656 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2017

Qualified Immunity Jordan next invokes the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields government employees from personal liability unless their, conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … ” of abusive behavior are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Tunnell v. Wiley

369 F. Supp. 1260 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 1974

is conferred on an individual solely by virtue of the office he holds, reason requires us to adopt a rule which does not provide immunity for those acts which are done clearly outside the authority or jurisdiction of the … If the Court of Appeals is still following the Bauers rationale, I would hold that Richard Sprague is nevertheless immune, since the acts alleged were not “clearly outside the authority or jurisdiction of the office.”

Trauma Service Group v. Keating

907 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1995

Although retired, LeBlanc and his dependents qualify for CHAMPUS benefits. 32 C.F.R. § 199.3 (b). … However, as the cases cited by defendants listed in the previous footnote clearly show, the United States has waived its immunity under CHAMPUS regulations and contract claims — neither of these cases deal with those issues

TADDEI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2026

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendant’s claim of qualified immunity fails.

Ammlung v. City of Chester

355 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1973

It is well established that a judicial or quasi-judicial officer is immune from civil rights liability for actions taken under the authority of his office. Pierson v. … Where established grievance or arbitration procedures are provided with review to state courts, it is clearly conceivable that such procedures could not be pursued to finality without risking the bar of the statute of limitations

Flohr v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

800 F. Supp. 1252 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1992

Regardless of whether an owner qualifies for immunity under the Recreation Act, it is settled that a negligence claim cannot be based on a set of facts under which the law imposes no duty on the defendant in favor of the … It is established under Pennsylvania law that a possessor of land has no duty to take action or prevent harm caused by conditions on adjacent land. Houck v.

Smith v. City of Chester

842 F. Supp. 147 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1994

Plaintiffs argue that the definitions section of that statute clearly intends to include school crossing guards as a traffic control device. … Moreover, section 8542 designates when the exceptions to an agency’s immunity apply, and it clearly exempts liability for “acts or conduct which constitutes a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct” from

Jones v. Waters

570 F. Supp. 1292 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 1983

Officer Waters is entitled to immunity for his actions under § 1983 unless his conduct violated “clearly established law” defining Jones’ constitutional rights. Harlow v. … Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978), which denied immunity under the “objective” prong of the immunity defense: ... if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [the defendants] was clearly

Muhammad v. United States

884 F. Supp. 2d 306 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2012

The government’s second proposition that the government is immune from strict liability torts is also established. … Finally, the right to privacy is a qualified right, and “must bow to a reasonable exercise of the police power.” Lynch v. Johnston, 76 Pa.Cmwlth. 8 , 463 A.2d 87, 89 (1983).

Tapp v. Proto

718 F. Supp. 2d 598 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2010

did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Not all of the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. In Richardson v.

United States ex rel. Ratchford v. Jeffes

451 F. Supp. 675 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 1978

However, “[t]he fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” Imbler v. … Navarette, supra (reinstating district court order granting summary judgment for defendant prison officials on the basis of qualified immunity).

Bartee v. Yanoff

514 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 1981

Polk County, 628 F.2d 1104 (8th Cir. 1980) (public defenders entitled to only qualified immunity). 2. … The facts that plaintiff must prove in order to establish his malpractice claim against Yanoff are distinct from the facts that he must prove to establish his federal claims against the other defendants.

Machon v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

847 F. Supp. 2d 734 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2012

for relief under § 1983 does not warrant dismissal of the complaint or establish defendants’ immunity.” 463 F.3d 285 , 289 (3d Cir.2006). … I will reserve judgment as to Defendants’ qualified immunity defense to Plaintiffs Count IV claim.

HAMMOND

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2026

Free Exercise Claim and Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A right is clearly established for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis if established precedent from the United States Supreme Court or United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit “would have put government

In Re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

621 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2009

also that all of the entities that were members of the EMMC were likewise qualified under the Act. 8 Nat’l Broiler, 436 U.S. at 822-23 , 98 S.Ct. 2122 . … Plaintiffs also argue that the Capper-Volstead immunity is destroyed because (1) defendants fail to satisfy the 50% rule to qualify as a valid cooperative for Capper-Volstead exemption; (2) defendants entered into multiple

UNITED STATES EX REL. RATCHFORD v. Jeffes

451 F. Supp. 675 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 1978

However, "[t]he fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial." Imbler v. … Navarette, supra (reinstating district court order granting summary judgment for defendant prison officials on the basis of qualified immunity).