Case law

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

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.

Garcia v. Newtown Township

819 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2011

Qualified Immunity The various members of the Township Board of Supervisors also assert that they are protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The purpose of qualified immunity is to shield “government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Raitport v. National Bureau of Standards

385 F. Supp. 1221 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1974

The administrative record clearly establishes that Raitport was afforded full opportunity to present his proposal and such supporting material as he desired. … One is reminded of the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard in Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.” 218 F.2d 182 .

MILLAN v. REYNOLDS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2024

violation has been adduced, courts evaluating a qualified immunity claim move to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established. … Further, even if Sergeant Kuntz’s behavior towards Millan rose to the level of a constitutional violation, his actions are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of his interaction

PRISONERS UNITED TOGETHER v. PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defense In addition to seeking summary judgment on Count II, Defendants contend they are protected by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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 .

Mobilfone of Northeastern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Commonwealth Telephone Co.

428 F. Supp. 131 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1977

It nonetheless concluded that: “(T)he furnishing of one-way radio-telephone paging service by an established operating telephone utility is a logical extension of its general telephone service clearly in the public interest … “Parker-type immunity” is immunity to antitrust laws mandated by the landmark case of Parker v.

United States v. Union Gas Co.

743 F. Supp. 1144 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 1990

CERC-LA establishes a “superfund,” which is financed primarily through excise tax revenues. … Furthermore, any state statute or constitutional provision establishing sovereign immunity for suits similar to actions under § 113(f) of CERCLA would be in direct conflict with CERCLA, and accordingly preempted by it.

GRAB v. COLUMBIA BOROUGH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2022

Regarding the use-of-a-taser claim, the court concludes that the parole agent is entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 142 S.

Harris v. Lehigh County Office of Children & Youth Services

418 F. Supp. 2d 643 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2005

In order to establish liability on the part of Lehigh County for the actions of OCYS, Isaiah Harris would have to show that it had an established policy or custom that resulted in the alleged constitutional violations. … However, the Supreme Court has yet to decide the issue of whether a guardian ad litem is absolutely immune, nor is there an established common-law tradition of absolute immunity for court-appointed guardians.

Pirocchi v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

365 F. Supp. 277 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1973

plaintiff was paid compensation. (2) It was under no duty to plaintiff to maintain in protective custody a chair it admittedly returned to its rightful owner, the Marriott Corporation. (3) Even if a duty did exist, its conduct establishes … As Professor Prosser notes, “[j]ust when the duty is undertaken, when it ends and what conduct is required, are nowhere clearly defined, and perhaps cannot be.”

Mikhail v. Kahn

991 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2014

Comm’n on Adult Entm’t Establishments, 369 F.3d 319 , 326 (3d Cir.2004). Mr. … Nov. 2, 2005) (“Plaintiff claims that Defendant is not protected by derived judicial immunity because her actions in not being a licensed, competent, qualified Psychologist mean that she acted beyond the scope of her appointment

BURFORD v. DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2019

[,]” the plaintiff’s claim is clearly established, and qualified immunity is inapplicable. … to qualified immunity as to those claims.

Williams v. WCAU-TV

555 F. Supp. 198 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1983

Section 611 establishes a qualified privilege only, not an absolute privilege. The immunity it offers is forfeited if the publisher steps out of the scope of the privilege or abuses the “occasion”. … The qualified fair report immunity can also be forfeited if the broadcaster “abuses the occasion” by exaggerated additions or embellishments to the account.

JACKSON v. HOLLAND

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2023

The Supreme Court has explained that “courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether … Here, Holland argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because “it was not clearly established at the time of the incident . . . that the de minimis force used against [Jackson] – pushing and handcuffing him as

BURGESS EL v. SANDERS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendant Officer Cummings moves to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims and asserts that he is immune from suit under qualified immunity. … To determine if qualified immunity applies, the Court must analyze the following: (1) whether the facts show that the officer’s conduct violated a federal right and (2) whether the right in question was clearly established

Cuffeld v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

936 F. Supp. 266 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 1996

The individual defendants also assert that they have qualified immunity to the claims by plaintiff. … Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are qualifiedly immune from the claims by plaintiff. Qualified immunity only applies, however, when a plaintiff is seeking monetary damages against state officials.

Coleman v. Stanziani

570 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 1983

Because it is clear from the pleadings that plaintiffs were detained pursuant to a state statute which has not previously been found unconstitutional, defendants claim that their good faith immunity is established by the … The Court held that Lyons clearly presented a case or controversy as to the damages claim, but that he did not have standing to seek injunctive relief because his standing to claim damages did not establish “a real and immediate

Harrison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar International, Inc.

316 F. Supp. 2d 186 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2004

The Court concludes that Defendants have not established a sufficiently coherent and pervasive theory of regulation, nor do they document any congressional intent that companies in the balloon industry are immune from antitrust … Clearly, they could.