Case law

Lohr v. Association of Catholic Teachers, Local 1776

416 F. Supp. 619 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1976

Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 , 91 S.Ct. 1790 , 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971), the Supreme Court discussed the elements a party must prove in order to establish a claim pursuant to § 1985(3). … whites more than the programs benefited qualified blacks as a result of the alleged discriminatory acts of the respective unions in denying employment opportunities to blacks.

Rooney v. City of Philadelphia

623 F. Supp. 2d 644 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2009

Pennsylvania law clearly requires that the alleged damage originate from property owned or actually controlled by SEPTA. … Section 8542(b)(5) then expressly establishes the utility service facilities exception to sovereign immunity, which includes sewer systems.

Smith v. City of Chester

851 F. Supp. 656 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1994

However, defendants are immune for several reasons. … Moreover, section 8542 designates when the exceptions to an agency's immunity apply, and it clearly exempts liability for "acts or conduct which constitutes a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct" from

MARCAVAGE v. City of Philadelphia

778 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2011

are entitled to qualified immunity. … In the alternative, qualified immunity would apply to protect these Defendants from *572 liability as a reasonable officer could believe that these actions did not violate clearly established law. 22 .

MILLER v. BURGETT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2021

Defendants are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity at this Stage. … clearly established law.”

Quinn v. Hook

231 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1964

It was clearly met in Pipola v. … Certainly this Court, in an action in which the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity, may not embark on what is in effect the review of a decision of the Tax Court, a function clearly denied to a district court

STATEN v. THE CITY OF PHILADLPHIA

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

When presented with a qualified immunity defense, a court must ask two questions: (1) whether the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was “clearly established … Defendants are correct that probable cause would entitle McNesby to qualified immunity. 7 The “clearly established” standard seeks to “shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their

In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

54 F. Supp. 3d 382 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2014

I also found that, even if all EMMC members had satisfied the requirements to qualify the cooperative for Capper-Volstead immunity, the Act’s exemption did not extend to protect cooperatives that conspire with entities not … Defendants have not established that such was the case with the EMMC’s non-grower members.

Hunter v. Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections

42 F. Supp. 2d 542 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 1999

To establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination for failure to accommodate under the ADA, the plaintiff must show that: 1) he has a disability within the meaning of the ADA; 2) he is otherwise qualified, with or … Otherwise Qualified Individual The second element of the prima facie case requires the plaintiff to show that he is a “qualified individual.” See Deane, 142 F.3d at 145 .

Locks v. Three Unidentified Customs Service Agents

759 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1990

This disposition makes it unnecessary to consider defendants’ claim that, even if the search violated the Fourth Amendment, recovery under Bivens is barred by the defendants' qualified immunity. 9 . … This disposition makes it unnecessary to consider defendants’ claim that, even if the search violated the Fifth Amendment, recovery under Bivens is barred by the defendants’ qualified immunity.

United States Ex Rel. Drescher v. Highmark, Inc.

305 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2004

Congress’ insertion of specific qualifying language, in fact the same qualifying language as applies to certifying and disbursing officers, eliminates the ambigüity on which the Body decision rests and suggests that Congress … does not, in fact, intend Medicare contractors to have full statutory immunity.

Williams v. Tansey

610 F. Supp. 1083 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1985

Second, they invoke the defense of qualified immunity, alleging that they acted in good faith. Finally, they deny having personally participated in the search. … In particular, qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which defendants must plead. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Gomez v.

Evans v. Chichester School District

533 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2008

Golde also argues the § 1983 claim against him should be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

United States v. Kates

419 F. Supp. 846 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1976

It clearly establishes that they and the companies of which they were principals participated in the conspiracy charged in Count I of the complaint. 15 This testimony also establishes the liability of the unconvicted defendants … It seems somewhat unusual that a government prosecutor would make such an agreement, since Benjamin clearly would have no choice to accept or reject a grant of immunity under Section 6002. See, e. g. United States v.

United States Ex Rel. Smith v. Heil

308 F. Supp. 1063 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1970

As to defendant Stufflet’s motion to dismiss, it is well established that an arrest made without probable cause subjects the arresting officer to liability under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (Supp.1969), for damages … There is, it is true, a derivative immunity afforded a public official acting under orders of a body, like the parole board, which does enjoy immunity from suit. Defelice v.

Lassin v. Tarr

351 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 1972

Defendant Ford was properly disturbed by the remarks of Lassin and his decision to request his removal was clearly one within his discretionary authority. 1 Director Tarr is specifically *5 empowered to remove from office … The Selective Service Regulations established specific guidelines which employees of the system must adhere to in the performance' of their duties.

Al-Ameen v. Atlantic Roofing Corp.

151 F. Supp. 2d 604 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 5, 2001

In addition, Al-Ameen’s own testimony establishes that an Atlantic foreman instructed him to walk on top of Atlantic’s roofing materials, allegedly causing his accident. … A statutory employer maintains immunity even if the employee’s actual employer provides full compensation under the Act.

Foxworth v. Pennsylvania State Police

402 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2005

Also, Defendants contend that qualified immunity shields the individual Defendants from actions for damages. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 24-27). … Because we determined supra that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts, we need not reach the issues of Defendant Miller's liability or qualified immunity.

Dudosh v. City of Allentown

665 F. Supp. 381 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1987

Qualified Immunity. … immunity” since the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the decedent’s death.

MERRITT v. HARTMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2020

clearly established law.” … To assess a claim for qualified immunity, a court must determine: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a Constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly