Case law

United States v. Cole

717 F. Supp. 309 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 1989

Moreover, the acts charged in Count XVIII are clearly delineated and involve only Cole and Span-jol. … Accordingly, Bijedic does not qualify at this time for the immunity afforded to consular officers under the Vienna Convention. 5 VII.

Eubanks v. Clarke

434 F. Supp. 1022 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1977

Immunity is an affirmative defense, Skehan v. … Therefore, even if the state of the case law was such that no constitutional right had been “clearly established,” Wood v.

Harris v. Steadman

160 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2016

to absolute immunity. … Hankin, 145 Fed.Appx. 768, 771 (3d Cir.2005) (holding that, on a motion to dismiss, the factual predicate establishing an affirmative defense must be "apparent from the face of the complaint.”). . 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("An application

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.

Drennon v. Philadelphia General Hospital

428 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1977

The plaintiff contends that she is a highly qualified laboratory technician denied employment at Philadelphia General Hospital solely by reason of her epilepsy. … We reject the view, therefore, that municipalities enjoy any special status which would immunize them from suits to redress deprivations of federal constitutional rights. See City of Kenosha v.

Austin v. Neal

933 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1996

to qualified immunity. … The court notes, however, that qualified immunity protects officials from mistaken judgments and shields from liability “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Hunter v.

ALEXANDER v. EATON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2025

“The doctrine qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Precedent may dictate if a right is clearly established. See Montemuro v. Jim Thorpe Area Sch.

Perez v. Teresinski

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from “liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Teresinski is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Mr. Perez’s arguments do not change that conclusion. He suggests that his “rights to due process and a jury trial” have “long been clearly established.”

STEELY v. CLEMONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2021

Clemons’ Assertion of Qualified Immunity Clemons next asserts that this Court should grant his motion for summary judgment because his use of force was not excessive under clearly established law, … A claim of qualified immunity requires two inquiries: (1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Muth, 666 F.

Kelly v. United States

512 F. Supp. 356 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1981

Unless liability for post-discharge negligent omissions by the government is carefully limited to situations in which the conduct challenged is clearly distinct from military actions immune under Feres , military planners … The panel decision in Jaffee II held that there was a direct cause of action under the Constitution against the individual government officers, and that they were entitled only to qualified immunity from suit.

T.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2026

the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (3d Cir. 2010) (“The burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity is on [the defendant].” (citing Harlow, 457 U.S. at 808)).

Mansmann v. Tuman

970 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1997

These two paragraphs clearly refer only to the Tumans. … to qualified immunity only.

Ogrod v. Pennsylvania

401 F. Supp. 115 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1975

Although the literal wording of this amendment makes it inapplicable to this case, since Plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania, it is well established that a State which has not consented to be sued is equally immune from … Although it is averred by Plaintiff that the doctrine of sovereign immunity, as embodied in the eleventh amendment, cannot protect a state from a suit which arises under the Constitution, the law is clearly to the contrary

Shoemaker v. Allender

520 F. Supp. 266 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 1981

Next, defendants Allender and Fischl argue that as government officers they are entitled to qualified immunity. See, for example, Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978) and Wood v. … However, even if defendants Allender and Fischl enjoy a qualified immunity, joint participation in a conspiracy with them imbues the other defendants with “color of state law”. Dennis v.

Jones v. Pennsylvania

164 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2001

Section 12202 clearly states Congress’ intent to hold states liable for violations of the ADA. 4 See Lavia v. Pennsylvania, 224 F.3d 190 , 196 (3d Cir.2000). … Nevertheless, we believe that the analytical framework established by the Court is clearly applicable to this case and requires a reversal of our earlier conclusion that Congress abrogated states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity

Fritsche

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2026

“‘[T]he qualified-immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … as true, did not violate a federal right or that the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.

PEROZA-BENITEZ v. CITY OF READING

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2020

“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … As previously stated, the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires a court to determine whether a plaintiff’s purported constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged

M.U. ex rel. Urban v. Downingtown High School East

103 F. Supp. 3d 612 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2015

Nevertheless, M.U.’s conclusion that because Reed did not follow the established procedures he is not immune from civil liability is a classic case of the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. … Intermediate Unit, 689 F.Supp.2d 721, 741 (M.D.Pa.2009) (“[E]videnee which demonstrates deliberate indifference fails to establish the type of willful misconduct necessary to pierce [Tort Claims Act] immunity.”).

Kis v. County of Schuylkill

866 F. Supp. 1462 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1994

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity applies when “conduct does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”). … The qualified immunity defense thus rests upon the objective legal reasonableness of the official's action in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Nunn

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

“At summary judgment, the burden is on the officer to establish an entitlement to qualified immunity.” Peroza-Benitez v. Smith, 994 F.3d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 2021). A. … is given credit, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity.”); Dimoff v.