Case law

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.

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.

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.”).

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.

DAVIS v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2024

“The doctrine of 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 … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must consider whether the plaintiff’s factual allegations “make out a violation of a constitutional right” that was “clearly established” at the

NEWMAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2020

Amendment right to be free from excessive force, this Court must next address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—i.e., whether that right was clearly established at the time of the incident … Coolbaugh argues that even if the force used was unreasonable, he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate a “clearly established” right.

In Re REA Express, Inc., Private Treble Damage, Etc.

412 F. Supp. 1239 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 1976

Clearly, if the agency involved were the CAB, and the statute the Federal Aviation Act, Toolco would dictate a finding of complete immunity. … Clearly, this is not the case. Two other points raised by plaintiff are simply disposed of.

United States v. Meyers

339 F. Supp. 1154 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 1972

evidence is not tainted by establishing that they had an independent, legitimate source for the disputed evidence.” … The Court *1159 there was confronted with the argument that because Murphy established that a second sovereign must accord a person no more than use immunity for the testimony originally compelled by another sovereign, no

ABDULLA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2026

Rather, the qualified immunity analysis turns on whether the law was clearly established that someone in Abdulla’s situation was a tenant. See Davitt v. … Under the qualified immunity standard, the right alleged to have been violated must have been “clearly established” at the time of the incident, meaning “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that [Lt.

King v. Township of East Lampeter

17 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1998

We need not engage in the complex sorting process required under the absolute immunity affirmative defense, because we find that the individual Township Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … immunity. 9.

Reiff v. Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

827 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1993

Congress clearly intended to lift the Eleventh Amendment bar when it passed the ADEA. Davidson, 920 F.2d at 443 . … Congress has clearly expressed its intention to hold states liable for violations of ADEA. Davidson, 920 F.2d at 443 . See also Ramirez v. Puerto Rico Fire Service, 715 F.2d 694 (1st Cir.1983).

Riverside Memorial Mausoleum, Inc. v. Umet Trust

434 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1977

Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 , 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), the effect of these opinions is that a REIT is usually immune from suit in federal diversity actions. … It is not enough that a party has the form of an entity which would qualify for diversity jurisdiction. It is also necessary to scrutinize the substance to insure that diversity jurisdiction is warranted.

Grimm v. Sweeney

249 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2003

Qualified Immunity Government officials are shielded from liability if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights” of which a reasonable public official would be aware. … O’Donnell is therefore protected by qualified immunity. 10.

Kremer v. Stewart

378 F. Supp. 1195 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 1974

There is no question that the judicial defendants are immune from damages under Section 1983, and it is generally recognized that elected prosecutors (or their subordinates) enjoy a similar type of immunity. Bauers v. … Although de fendant Stewart is not an elected prosecutor, we believe that he meets the other standards set forth in the Heisel case sufficiently to qualify him for an immunity similar to the immunity afforded judges.

D.M. v. County of Berks

929 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2013

The actions of a child welfare employee only qualify for absolute immunity when they are prosecutorial in nature, such as when an employee “formulate[s] and presents] ... recommendations to the court with respect to a child … Since Defendants have not raised a qualified immunity defense to Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court will not address the possible merits of this defense here. .

Pettis v. United States Department of Education (In Re Pettis)

146 B.R. 653 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1992

We will not disturb the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of facts unless they are clearly erroneous. Our review of legal issues is plenary. Brown v. Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union, 851 F.2d 81 (3rd Cir.1988). … § 106(c) nor any other provision of law establishes an unequivocal textual waiver of the Government’s immunity from a bankruptcy trustee’s claims for monetary relief.

Lawrence v. Trans Union LLC

296 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2003

Qualified Immunity TU argues that it is entitled to qualified immunity on Lawrence’s common law claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e), which reads: Except as provided in sections 1681n and 1681o of this title, no consumer may … Because I have decided that Lawrence has made a sufficient showing of willfulness to survive summary judgment on her claim under § 1681n, I find that TU does not enjoy qualified immunity under § 1681h(e) on Lawrence’s common

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Inc.

508 F. Supp. 2d 430 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2007

The Supreme Court found, however, the plaintiffs’ alleged fraud and failure-to-warn claims to be preempted, since those claims were “premised on common-law rules that qualify as ‘requirements for labeling or packaging.’ ” … Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the dose of vaccine administered to Hannah Bruesewitz originated in a “Hot lot.”

THORPE v. TOWNSHIP OF SALISBURY, PENNSYLVANIA

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

Depending on the factual allegations, the Defendants may be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and/or qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (holding that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

162 F.R.D. 482 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 1995

Adequacy To establish adequate representation, “(a) the plaintiffs attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and (b) the plaintiff must not have interests antagonistic … However, the Court of Appeals stated that "PP & L is not immune from antitrust liability to the extent it made these offers contingent upon 'all-electric development agreements.’ ” Id.