Case law

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.

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.

E. Rockhill Twp. v. Richard E. Pierson Materials Corp.

386 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2019

The principal focus of the appeal in Lonzetta was whether the governmental defendants were entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. … Because Counterclaim Plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of their substantive due process rights, I need not address the defense of qualified immunity.

Gwynn v. City of Philadelphia

866 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2012

Kelly would all be entitled to qualified immunity in this case. … “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages' insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Daye v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

344 F. Supp. 1337 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1972

The statutory language of the Federal-Aid Highway Act clearly indicates that the ultimate responsibility for any safety provisions under the Act lies with the Secretary. … A reading of the language of the regulation indicates that the establishment of such programs is directory rather than mandatory.

DiPietro v. Garden State Racing Ass'n

463 F. Supp. 574 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1978

authority and these responsibilities is that the Racing Commission, by virtue of its regulation, licensing and supervision of various parties and activities in the racing industry, pursuant to the state’s police power, is clearly … It is well established that a state may condition consent to suit on the bringing of suit in its own state court system. Great Northern Life Ins. v. Read, 322 U.S. 47 , 64 S.Ct. 873 , 88 L.Ed. 1121 (1943).

Santiago v. Sullivan

783 F. Supp. 223 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1992

First, the decision must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed … Clearly, the three Chevron factors weigh in favor of applying Melkonyan prospectively in the present case.

Knepp v. Lane

848 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1994

Under this rule, judgment will not be granted “unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Jablonski v. … ; and (7) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Schnabel v. BLDG. & CONST. TRADES COUNCIL OF PHILA.

563 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1983

Thus for count two to survive dismissal, they must establish their class has been subject to historically pervasive discrimination. … Several sections are relevant to immunity.

Lane v. United States

918 F. Supp. 864 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1996

Under the first prong of the test, to qualify as a discretionary function, an action must involve an element of judgment or choice. … The Director’s decision clearly involves an element of judgment or choice and therefore involves the exercise of discretion. Powers, 996 F.2d at 1125 .

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings

497 F. Supp. 979 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1980

To qualify in its role as a surrogate for the Fifth Amendment, the immunity statute must afford “the same protection by assuring that the compelled testimony can in no way lead to the infliction of criminal penalties.” … Rosenthal has clearly alleged a protected interest in avoiding a violation of the Fifth Amendment and the immunity statute, and a direct and imminent harm if he is forced to comply with the grand jury’s subpoena.

Mabine v. Vaughn

25 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1998

The defendants move for summary judgment based on plaintiffs failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim, a lack of respon-deat superior liability under § 1983, and qualified immunity. … Defendants also argue that summary judgment is warranted because each defendant has qualified immunity.

LaLoup v. United States

29 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2014

Once the defendant has met this burden, “the burden then shift[s] to the plaintiffs to establish that one of the exceptions to immunity applie[s]”, but “the ultimate burden of proving immunity from suit lies with the [defendant … Once the foreign state has produced [] prima facie evidence of immunity, the burden of going forward [ ] shift[s] to the plaintiff to produce evidence establishing that the foreign state is not entitled to immunity.

GOODLIN v. ROSE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2025

Detective White’s Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or … An officer is protected by qualified immunity unless there is a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established when the officer allegedly violated it. Jefferson v.

Greenberg v. Barbour

322 F. Supp. 745 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1971

Defendants also contend that 50 P.S. § 4603 provides them with immunity from negligent acts. … . § 556 provides that “No law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the Legislature.” 50 P.S. § 4707 specifically provides that this act, of which section 4603 is a part, shall

MACK-TANSMORE v. MR. JONES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2022

Mack-Tansmore’s rights in the absence of a bottom bunk order, they would be entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that officers had an obligation to provide treatment and care … Jones had violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity would apply because it was not clearly established that requiring an inmate— who can walk with some assistance—to take the stairs with assistance from another

Syre v. Pennsylvania

662 F. Supp. 550 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 1987

It is well established that judges and courts are absolutely immune from damage liability for actions taken within their judicial capacities. Stump v. … Clearly, Henson is absolutely immune from damages for his conduct during the appeal.

Hancock Industries v. Schaeffer

619 F. Supp. 322 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 1985

activity pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy.” … Defendants here have clearly established that the needs of the respective counties and their citizens necessitated the closure of the landfills to out-of-county trash.

Leake v. United States

843 F. Supp. 2d 554 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2011

An expert is qualified if he or she has specialized knowledge "greater than the average layman.” Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601 (3d Cir.1998). Defendant does not challenge the qualifications of Plaintiffs experts. . … Plaintiff must establish general and specific causation to sustain each of his claims. Compare Sloan v.

Sklar v. Ryan

752 F. Supp. 1252 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1990

This was clearly an indirect, nonevidentiary use of the immunized statements as prohibited by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. See United States v. Semkiw, 712 F.2d 891 (3d Cir.1983); United States v. … These circumstances do not establish an atmosphere of coercion.