Case law

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.

Skrocki v. Caltabiano

568 F. Supp. 703 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1983

State legislative commands evidence no intent, express or otherwise, to allow a borough council to establish tenure-like relationships with its employees. … On the other hand, the decision to hire or fire a municipal employee, even when made by a “legislative body”, is administrative in nature and deserves only qualified immunity. Detz v. Hoover, 539 F.Supp. 532, 534 (E.D.

Ruder v. Pequea Valley School District

790 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2011

Further, the statements were clearly “of or concerning” Ruder. … Thus, I find that Defendants Patrick Hallock, the Superintendent of the Pequea Valley School District, and Defendant Brian Ferris, the President of the Pequea Valley School Board, qualify for immunity under this doctrine.

MARKEY v. CURTIN

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

Markey states a claim for viewpoint discrimination violating the First Amendment and instead hang their hat on qualified immunity. So we turn our attention to the matter of clearly established rights. … And we are unmoved by the Borough officials’ argument they have qualified immunity simply because earlier courts looking at this issue granted qualified immunity.63 First, those courts found no clearly established law at

Lal v. Borough of Kennett Square

935 F. Supp. 570 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1996

Lai contends that Judge Gavin is not immune from suit because his actions were not judicial and because he acted without jurisdiction. Lai’s arguments are frivolous. First, what Judge Gavin did was clearly judicial. … The fact that Lai filed this lawsuit and refused to withdraw it even though he knew that these defenses barred his claims establishes Lai’s willful violation of the rules.

Antrim's Case

1 F. Cas. 1062 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1863

No power, otherwise unconstitutional, can, as qualifying rights, privileges or immunities, legislatively conferred or vested, acquire validity through any legislative annexation, express or implied, of a condition to their … In the distribution of the judicial power, congress may establish inferior courts.

Frazier v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

868 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1994

These cases clearly set forth the rule that the immunity defense is not waivable and may be raised even after a preliminary objection raising the defense has been overruled. … It is well established that SEPTA is an agency of the Commonwealth and as such is afforded all of the sovereign immunity protections enumerated in sections 8521 through 8526. Feingold v.

THORPE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2020

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity has long “protect[ed] government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … However, that court did not assess whether clearly established law precluded an assertion of qualified immunity as to that claim.

Fedor v. Ribicoff

211 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1962

Clearly, mere failure on the part of the United States to answer is no ground for entry of judgment against it. … If plaintiff proceeds to establish his claim, and then satisfies the court as to waiver of sovereign immunity and service on the defendant, judgment may be entered against the defendant despite failure to appear. Cf.

BORDEN v. GREEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2025

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … As an affirmative defense, the burden of establishing qualified immunity falls on the official claiming it. , 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011).

Chancellor v. Pottsgrove School District

501 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2007

For § 1983 actions, public officials general- ly enjoy qualified immunity for their actions unless those actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should know. Harlow v. … Therefore, the Court will revisit the issue of qualified immunity at the conclusion of trial. 17 .

Fedor v. Ribicoff

211 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1962

Clearly, mere failure on the part of the United States to answer is no ground for entry of judgment against it. … If plaintiff proceeds to establish his claim, and then satisfies the court as to waiver of sovereign immunity and service on the defendant, judgment may be entered against the defendant despite failure to appear. Cf.

United States v. Schwartz

851 F. Supp. 692 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 17, 1994

The doctrine of sovereign immunity serves as a bar to suit against the United States unless the government has explicitly waived sovereign immunity. United Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 985 F.2d 1320 (6th Cir.1993). … The statutory language clearly allows jurisdiction on the basis of the facts alleged by plaintiff.

SMOOTH VAPE, LLC v. LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 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 person … That is, Defendant has not shown that the right at issue – the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement – was not, in fact, clearly established at the time of the raid, such that qualified immunity could apply to Defendants

Moss v. School District of Norristown

250 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 1966

Accepting as true all of those things which plaintiff seeks to establish by further discovery, as a matter of law they fail to establish a nuisance. In Anderson v. … Stripped down, they consisted of nothing more than negligence in the performance of duty by the employes, and clearly within the general rule denying recovery.” Anderson v.

Bristol Oak Properties, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in lawsuits brought under Section 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must not only successfully allege a violation of a constitutional right, but a plaintiff must also prove that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time the

Ryan v. Lower Merion Township

205 F. Supp. 2d 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2002

Defendants Ryan and Morris argue they are immune from suit under the doctrine of judicial immunity. “It is a well-settled principle of law that judges are generally ‘immune from a suit for money damages.’ ” Figueroa v. … Hill, 360 Pa.Super. 539 , 521 A.2d 33, 36 (1987)(“[T]he law in Pennsylvania is well established that judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages when performing judicial acts, even if their actions are in error

Bennis v. Gable

604 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1984

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Thus, even defendants who violate the constitutional rights of others enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is found that their conduct was unreasonable under the applicable standard

Kahermanes v. Marchese

361 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1973

In addition, a claim of qualified privilege can also be defeated if it is found that Márchese, Jr.’s statement to Sergeant Fair was motivated by malice toward the plaintiff. … He will, of course, have the burden to establish the causal relationship.

BUSKIRK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2026

Qualified Immunity The “qualified-immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Buskirk, I cannot say that Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established federal rights. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Buskirk’s Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims. IV.