Case law

Simpson v. Horn

25 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 1998

known that they were violating the plaintiffs’ clearly established rights ... by randomly assigning incoming inmates to double cells.” … I will therefore deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Folino

528 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2007

Second, the FBI argues that, even if this Court may decide the instant dispute, Johnson has failed to establish that his need for an unredacted copy of the memorandum outweighs the privacy concerns raised by the FBI. A. … Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 , 71 S.Ct. 416 , 95 L.Ed. 417 (1951), in support of its assertion of immunity from compulsion to testify. However, Touhy does not provide the asserted immunity.

OGROD v. DEVLIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2022

Moreover, even if such a right could be found to exist, “it is not—and certainly was not in the mid-1990s—clearly established, meaning that the defendants are (or would be) shielded by qualified immunity.” … The Devlin Defendants alternatively argue in a single sentence that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “it has not been clearly established – and certainly was not clearly established in 1992 – that the Fifth

1st Westco Corp. v. School Dist. of Philadelphia

811 F. Supp. 204 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1993

Indeed, the statute’s language and purported purpose — reducing unemployment in the Pennsylvania construction industry — clearly discriminate against non-Pennsylvanians. … This is not merely a statute which prefers qualified, yet unemployed, Pennsylvanians over non-Pennsylvanians.

Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC

182 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2016

But where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs.” Id. at 144 , 112 S.Ct. 1081 . … The elements of a misrepresentation claim are well established.

Clyde v. Thornburgh

533 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 1982

Further, I take notice that the costs of filing a lawsuit are not great and the undisputed facts in the record clearly establish that plaintiff had sufficient funds to start suit within the limitations period. … As part of that Act, the legislature provided for a qualified official immunity for its officers.

Foerst v. Banko

662 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1984

Witman’s belief that the sale of “X-rated” or “Adult” video cassettes would violate Pennsylvania’s criminal statutes and that therefore the proposed use could not qualify for a permit under the Falls Township zoning ordinance … By alleging a policy, plaintiff has alleged an authorized act resulting from an established governmental procedure.

DETTY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2026

“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

Regional Medical Transport, Inc. v. Highmark, Inc.

541 F. Supp. 2d 718 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2008

It concludes that HGSA qualifies as a person for purposes of the federal officer removal statute. C. … Official Immunity Defendants argue that under the official immunity doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Westfall v.

Sergio v. Doe

769 F. Supp. 164 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1991

The defense of qualified good-faith immunity cannot succeed at this stage. … “The relevant question ... is the objective (albeit fact-specific) question whether ... reasonable officers] could have believed [their conduct] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information [they]

Gainey aka Naree Abdullah v. PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2023

Second, Officer Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity for any alleged Brady violation because (1) a police officer’s constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory materials was not clearly established … Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Dennis v.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

802 F. Supp. 1273 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1992

The PTJC contends that it deserves Eleventh Amendment immunity because, under state law, it is "an arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" with powers to regulate railroads that are clearly derived from the legislature of … In contrast, the circumstances presented to us so clearly concern an area not within the parameters of section 546b that it is unnecessary to consider the federal tax immunity rules considered by the Third Circuit. 882 F.2d

HICKS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2025

Nonetheless, qualified immunity applied because a police officer’s duty of disclosure was not clearly established at the time of Gibson’s prosecution in 1994. Id. … Because this duty was not clearly established until 2005, we need not address the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Qualified immunity bars Mr.

YACKAMOVICH v. THOMAS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability for civil damages as long as his conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Naisha v. … And once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff bears the initial burden of overcoming that defense by showing that the defendant violated the plaintiff's clearly established right.

PRICE v. STEINMETZ

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Dennis v. … Thus, the right at issue here is clearly established. 2.

HUGHES

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

Plaintiff also argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim because their actions violated a clearly established right. … As such, this Court need not reach the clearly established inquiry of its qualified immunity analysis.96 See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. As such, Plaintiff’s excessive force claim is dismissed.

Weinstein v. Bullick

827 F. Supp. 1193 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1993

Defendants also assert that, even if the statements were defamatory, plaintiff cannot establish that they applied to her. … . *1207 For a defendant to qualify for this absolute immunity from suit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court requires that there be proof that (1) he is a “high public official,” and (2) the allegedly defamatory statements were

SWAINSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials, including Detectives Alexander and Fischer, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Accordingly, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this count.

United States Ex Rel. Myers v. Sielaff

381 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1974

Prior case law and most certainly contemporary case law clearly establishes that due process is required if the consequences of an official’s actions are sufficiently serious to amount to a “grievous loss”. … Under contemporary ease law it seems clear that defendants are not immune from suit under the Civil Rights Act. Meyers v. Alldredge, 492 F.2d 296 (3d Cir. 1974); Wolff v. McDonnell, supra.

KIMBROUGH v. SMITH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2025

Because the Court found that Kimbrough pled a violation of his First Amendment rights, the qualified immunity analysis turns on the second prong of the analysis—whether the right was clearly established when Kimbrough … “Indeed, qualified immunity is not a talismanic phrase that relieves Defendants of their burden to show that their actions did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Miller, 672 F.