Case law

Newell v. Kuryan

155 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2001

Alternatively, Defendant argues that he is entitled to “qualified/good faith immunity from suit.” (Def. Mem. at 17.) … The Court need not address the parties’ arguments with respect to qualified immunity. Furthermore, as the Court concludes that no constitutional violation has occurred, Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages.

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

Riddle v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

831 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1993

Accordingly, we hereby adopt the reasoning of the Sentner Court and hold that the defendant is not immune from this suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity is therefore denied. D. Demurrer to Plaintiffs Claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Johnson ex rel. Estate of Newsuan v. City of Philadelphia

105 F. Supp. 3d 474 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2015

Because I conclude that Dempsey did not violate Newsuan's Fourth Amendment rights in his use of deadly force, I need not address defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. … But I note in passing that where "plaintiff fails to make out a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity inquiry is at an end; the officer is entitled to immunity.” Bennett v.

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

Godbey

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2026

Prong Two: Clearly Established Right Inquiry “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right” at the time of the violation. … Accordingly, these rights were clearly established in March 2024, and Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

WILLIAMS v. RUTALA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2025

In support of their qualified immunity defense, the individual defendants did not argue “that their conduct as alleged in the complaint does not violate clearly established law.” Thomas, 463 F. 3d at 289. … More specifically, the Individual Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint does not contain factual allegations supporting a claim of violation of clearly established

Dawson v. Cook

238 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2017

Humphrey and that Officer Cook is entitled to qualified immunity. … Although the Policy clearly pei’-mitted Plaintiff to proceed directly to review by the Commissioner after not receiving a response to his grievance within the required time limits, Plaintiff has not established—or even alleged—that

Acker v. Ray Angelini, Inc.

259 F. Supp. 3d 305 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2016

Discussion A Controlling Standard These Motions are governed by the well-established test set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), as amplified by Celotex Corp. v. … The particular requirement of Pennsylvania law in a case such as this one is that the intent to indemnify against claims by employees of the alleged indemnitor must clearly appear in the terms of the agreement.

United States v. Stout

499 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1980

A severance will only be granted if the defendant clearly establishes that he “will be so severely prejudiced by a joint trial that it will in effect deny him a fair trial.” United States v. … Smith recognized that a judicial grant of immunity “must be clearly limited.” 615 F.2d at 972 .

Petsinger v. PA. DEPT. OF TRANSP.

211 F. Supp. 2d 610 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2002

"Only the sovereign's own consent could qualify the absolute character of that immunity." Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 414 , 99 S.Ct. 1182, 1185 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979). … However, Plaintiff has not clearly set forth in his complaint which claims he is alleging against PennDOT, nor which legal basis upon which he relies for this action.

Simmons v. Maslysnky

45 F.R.D. 127 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1968

Therefore, there clearly could be no merit to the plaintiff’s proposed civil rights claims against the defendant. … immunity.

Roderick Johnson v. City of Reading, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2025

by Plaintiff occurred before this right was clearly established.6 Cabrera and Dietrich are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that they could be liable under Brady until Gibson was decided … In Thomas, the panel denied qualified immunity for the failure to render medical care, and it found that this right had been clearly established. See id. at 284-85.

Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission

530 F. Supp. 1098 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1982

establish two standards for antitrust immunity under Parker v. … the prices established by private parties.

RUTALA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2025

A defendant demonstrates they are entitled to qualified immunity “only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their … could not have been clearly established in 1930.

AARDVARK CHILDCARE AND LEARING CENTER, INC. v. Township of Concord

401 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2005

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits brought against them under § 1983, based on their discretionary functions, as long as them conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If a plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation, “the qualified immunity inquiry is at an end; the officer is entitled to immunity.” Bennett, 274 F.3d at 133 .

OUTLAW v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2021

The judge-created defense of qualified immunity shields officers from suit for monetary damages under § 1983 unless “the official violated a ... constitutional right,” and “the right was clearly established at the … As we discussed, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on each, and we agree with Defendants that the City of Philadelphia cannot be liable for rights not clearly established.

Ronald Johnson v. City of Philadelphia, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2026

Defendants further argue they are entitled to qualified immunity, because a Fourteenth Amendment malicious prosecution claim is not clearly established today. Id. (citing Hicks v. City of Phila., 783 F. … As to qualified immunity, Plaintiff contends this Court explained in Coulston that “[u]nder binding Third Circuit precedent, qualified immunity based on the ‘clearly established’ prong is foreclosed where the conduct underlying

Pierce v. Montgomery County Opportunity Board, Inc.

884 F. Supp. 965 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1995

Because of this holding, we need not examine State Defendants’ assertion that they are protected by qualified immunity. … We note, however, that because Pierce’s Amended Complaint inadequately describes her § 1983 claim, we would be unable to determine whether State Defendants were protected by qualified immunity.

Lowenschuss v. West Publishing Company

402 F. Supp. 1212 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1975

Apparently, Judge Duffy became suspicious that plaintiff had invested in the shares subject to the tender offer solely for the purpose of qualifying to bring *1214 the class action, and with knowledge that the target company … Promptly upon receipt of Judge Duffy’s opinion, plaintiff communicated with Judge Duffy, and presented affidavits and documentary evidence which conclusively established: (1) that plaintiff placed the order for the shares