Case law

MCKENNA v. WOLK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2021

In addition, for Plaintiff to overcome Wolk’s qualified immunity defense, clearly established law at the time of the alleged constitutional wrong must have put the excessiveness of the force used “beyond debate.” … Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Wolk is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongdoing that striking a dirt bike rider with

Rivkin v. County of Montgomery

838 F. Supp. 1009 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1993

The Prothonotaiy’s qualified immunity is no better than the other defendants’, which depend upon the reasonableness of their action under ascertainable constitutional standards, e.g., Harlow v. … Indeed, if defendants' Eleventh Amendment or qualified immunity defenses had any merit, they could not survive the Supreme Court's decision in Webb's Fabulous where the defendant was, as here, the Clerk of Court acting pursuant

Bracey v. BETANCOURT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from monetary damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable … Defendant has failed to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Charlene R. v. Solomon Charter School

63 F. Supp. 3d 510 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2014

Sovereign immunity does not bar suits against the states under the IDEA. The Act itself contains a provision abrogating state sovereign immunity. See 20 U.S.C. § 1403 . … The court held that “the facts of this case are clearly evident that [the student] was afforded a FAPE.” Id. at *6 .

Layser v. Morrison

935 F. Supp. 562 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1995

“The Eleventh Amendment bars such suits unless the State has waived its immunity ... [or unless Congress overrides] that immunity.” Will, 491 U.S. at 66 , 109 S.Ct. at 2309-2310 (citation omitted). … Morrison does not qualify as a covered entity under the ADA See 42 U.S.C.A §§ 12111(2), 12112(a). 3.

Williams v. City of Allentown

25 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1998

In this case, Bloom and Watson are being sued for their actions relating to an event that the court previously ruled, for reasons of qualified immunity, to be properly decided on summary judgment. … In the alternative, defendants Watson and Bloom can also claim the same qualified immunity that was the basis for the summary judgment in the 1996 action.

MORGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2026

For the reasons below, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendant Officers on Plaintiff’s federal claims because the undisputed record establishes probable cause and, independently, qualified immunity … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless the plaintiff shows (1) the official violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was “clearly established

TINCH v. LOWER CHICHESTER TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT

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

entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

ESTATE OF MARCO ANTONIO MALDONADO v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2023

Qualified immunity shields their conduct because Mr. Maldonado’s right to have them intervene on his behalf was not clearly established. Finally, Mr. … Several courts in this district linked together the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity to the “deliberate indifference” standard under Monell.

GRACE LAND II, LLC v. BRISTOL TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2019

violate a clearly established right. … Accordingly, because qualified immunity is not clearly established from the face of the complaint, the Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is denied. See id.

SHINE v. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2024

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must “plead[ ] facts showing that (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … As Plaintiff has identified no violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, I will also grant qualified immunity to the John and Jane Doe County correctional officers.

WATSON v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2024

Qualified Immunity – Review of Applicable Law “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … purposes of qualified immunity.

Nash v. Reedel

86 F.R.D. 12 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1979

. § 1983 , which establishes a cause of action for wrongs committed under color of law, and she was not acting under color of law when testifying at Nash’s criminal trial. … Clearly, then, on the facts of this case, Delaney is entitled to have the complaint against her dismissed.

LAZAR v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct (1) “violated a . . . constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … As discussed above, it is not clearly established whether such a right exists under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, municipal liability is not tethered to the “clearly established” qualified immunity standard.

Rex v. Cia. Pervana De Vapores, S.A.

493 F. Supp. 459 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1980

This issue will now be brought clearly to Congress’s attention and it may take appropriate action to clarify the FSIA. 11 . … There the court held that even though a jurisdictional statute existed which was normally relied on in suits such as the one before the court both to overcome the sovereign immunity of the United States and to establish jurisdiction

Peters v. Delaware River Port Authority

785 F. Supp. 517 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1992

The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution 2 bars suits in federal court against a *519 state unless the state has waived its immunity or unless Congress exercises its power to override that immunity. Will v. … Accordingly, a state and any political entity which qualifies as an “arm of the state,” are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. Will, 109 S.Ct. at 2308-11 .

Johnston v. Love

940 F. Supp. 738 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1996

Commonwealth to the federal immunity agreement, after Assistant District Attorney Troiani opposed the immunity agreement. 15 The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the two eases where the courts have imputed … Such evidence is clearly admissible. See Commonwealth v. Duffey, 519 Pa. 348, 367 , 548 A.2d 1178, 1187 (1988).

MOTON v. OFFICER BRANDON HARRIS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . … Aug. 19, 2020) (citing the rule that Defendants bear the burden in establishing entitlement to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss).

In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation

907 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2012

The Supreme Court has established a two-pronged test to determine whether a party’s conduct is a sham, therefore denying Noerr-Pennington immunity. See Prof'l Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. … To get around this immunity, Plaintiffs will have the burden of proving that the petitions were “shams,” which requires showing that they were both objectively and subjectively baseless.

JOHN DOE v. EVANCHICK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Doe’s purported First Amendment right to employ this insult cannot be said to have been “clearly established” for the purposes of overcoming qualified immunity.12 10 At argument, counsel protested that the standard