Case law

Flagg v. Control Data

806 F. Supp. 1218 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1992

If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to clearly set forth a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge. … Although termination of an employee is clearly covered by the amended § 1981, Flagg has failed to establish discriminatory intent on the part of the Defendants.

Livingston by Livingston v. Pa. Power & Light Co.

609 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 1985

Id. 396 , 153 A.2d 486 The court concluded that the body of water before it, a 150-acre lake, “... falls far short of qualifying as a highway for commerce or a link of a chain within the reasonable intendment of that phrase … Finally, abrogating PP & L’s statutory immunity on that basis would render uniform enforcement of the Act impossible.

Concerned Citizens of Bushkill Township v. Costle

468 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1978

It is well established that sovereign immunity extends not only to original claims but also to counterclaims which demand the entry of an affirmative judgment against the sovereign. … Also, it is established that sovereign immunity and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims cannot be evaded by easting the claim as one for affirmative or mandatory injunctive relief.

U. S. Ex Rel. Brzozowski v. Randall

281 F. Supp. 306 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1968

Apart from the fact that the instant case is clearly distinguishable on the facts, Watson, supra, is clearly inapposite, and of questionable validity as authority today. … For a recent discussion of the scope of immunity from civil suits under sections 1983 and 1985, see 40 Temple L.Q. 244 (1967).

MOORE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2026

“A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … .”60 Accordingly, such a right was not clearly established at the time of Mr.

Fanning v. United States

202 F.R.D. 154 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2001

Further, sovereign immunity does not apply. … The APA waives government immunity for: final agency actions; for which there is no adequate remedy at law; and for relief other than money damages.

McCauley v. Computer Aid Inc.

447 F. Supp. 2d 469 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2006

Thus, the Plaintiff cannot establish the existence of federal action necessary for a Bivens action. C. … In this case, discrimination on the basis of withholding his social security number clearly cannot be considered invidious.

Croll v. United States

594 F. Supp. 976 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 1984

Nathanson, both qualified, we face a difficult task. In weighing Dr. … However, even his testimony, however strongly and emphatically stated, does not establish that his choices or assumptions were the only logical or reasonable assumptions or choices which a qualified epidemiologist could or

Breyer v. Meissner

23 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 1998

They are also clearly insufficient to overcome defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, under which federal officials performing discretionary functions are "shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their … conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation

836 F. Supp. 2d 290 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2011

However, there are no allegations in the Complaint that refer to any federal statute, let alone any allegations that Defendants do not qualify for immunity under the Capper-Volstead Act or a similar federal statute. … or combination in restraint of trade or as creating an illegal monopoly,” id. § 17-1634, may qualify as one such state statute.

HICKS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2023

Overcoming qualified immunity requires that the right be “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” George, 738 F.3d at 579. … of qualified immunity.

In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation

884 F. Supp. 2d 184 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2012

The Supreme Court has established a two-pronged test to determine whether a party’s conduct is a sham and therefore not entitled to Noerr-Pennington immunity. See Prof'l Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. … I’m only qualified to talk about the regulatory process and procedure that is part and parcel of FDA coming to a scientific conclusion.”).

McLaughlin v. Rose Tree Media School District

52 F. Supp. 2d 484 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 1999

Such evidence is sufficient to qualify as “acquiescence” to support a claim for supervisor liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . VII. … Since Rose Tree did not address these requirements, Rose Tree clearly cannot establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the quid pro quo sexual harassment claim. 5 .

SKELTON v. BOROUGH OF EAST GREENVILLE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2021

Mar. 21, 2011) (qualified immunity not available as to PHRA claim); Keefer v. Durkos, 371 F. Supp. 2d 686, 700 (W.D. Pa. 2005) (qualified immunity not available as to PWL claim). … Clearly Established Right The Court next considers whether the constitutional right at issue—the First Amendment right to free speech—was clearly established at the time of Gerhart

White v. Kane

860 F. Supp. 1075 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 1994

Having decided to grant defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v., I need not reach the issue of defendant Kane’s claim of qualified immunity to this action. See Harlow v. … If I were to reach that issue, I would hold that defendant Kane would be entitled to qualified immunity because its is clear that at the time of the hearing a reasonable officer in defendant Kane’s position could have believed

GIAMMARINARO v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2024

Given this, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, finding that “the right to be free from unreasonable force in like circumstances is clearly established under Third Circuit law.” Id. … invoke qualified immunity in this case.

Lee v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

418 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2005

To establish a disability under the ADA, the plaintiff “must show that she has an impairment; identify the life activity that she claims is limited by the impairment; and prove that the limitation is substantial.” … These claims must be dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds. 5 Pennsylvania and its officials and employees acting within the scope of their employment enjoy sovereign immunity from suits under state law unless that immunity

United States Ex Rel. Harrison v. Pace

380 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 1974

Ct. 79 , 38 L.Ed.2d 44 (1973). 6 Because affirmative relief is no longer appropriate in this action, and since the defendants have established valid immunity and good faith defenses, they would not be liable for monetary … We do not believe that Scheuer requires an inquiry into the good faith and reasonable ground for an official’s belief in the propriety of his action, when sufficient competent evidence exists of record to establish the immunity

Conroy v. City of Philadelphia

421 F. Supp. 2d 879 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2006

Moreover, as explained infra, even if the City’s actions were compelled by the State’s rules, the City would not be immunized from suit. Ms. … City of Camden, 657 F.Supp. 396, 403 (D.N.J.1987) (noting the role of the qualified immunity defense in protecting officials from personal liability for reasonably relying upon and enforcing state law). 8 .

BUSKIRK v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2025

ANALYSIS The “qualified-immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … right; and (B) whether the right at issue was clearly established when the conduct took place. , 572 U.S. 650, 655– 56 (2014).