Case law

Parker v. Google, Inc.

422 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2006

In this case, there is no doubt that Google qualifies as an “interactive computer service” and not an “information content provider.” Thus, it is eligible for immunity under § 230. … Google argues that it is immune from Lanham Act claims because of its § 230 immunity under the CDA.

MEDINA v. HALLMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2020

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, we ask whether the alleged facts show a violation of a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the conduct.*? … Medina has adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional right and Supervisor Hallman has not argued the law “was not clearly established,” Supervisor Hallman has not established qualified immunity.‘ E.

Viss v. Pittenger

345 F. Supp. 1349 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1972

Clearly, the statute does not contemplate that another three-judge court determine the constitutionality of the Act on other grounds. … The only feasible relief which could be afforded to plaintiffs would be to order that a hearing be held by the State to determine whether they, in fact, did qualify for reimbursement under the Act.

United States v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals, Inc.

797 F. Supp. 411 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 1992

Such counterclaims are clearly barred. … a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Williams v. General Services Administration

582 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1984

Likewise, as to the argument that plaintiffs clearly have not met all the requirements of Rule 4 for service of process, I will not grant dismissal on those grounds. … This uncontested affidavit is sufficient to establish that plaintiff husband has indeed sought redress under FECA.

PIERRE v. POLICE OFFICER CLARKE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2021

Officers seeking qualified immunity bear the burden of establishing the affirmative defense. See Halsey, 750 F.3d at 288. … Clearly established right Qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly

THOMPSON v. FERGUSON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2020

DOC Defendants The qualified immunity doctrine “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Neither of these rights were so clearly established that a reasonable person would have known the new DOC mail policy was unconstitutional. An inmate’s right to confidentiality of legal mail is clearly established.

Fontroy v. Beard

485 F. Supp. 2d 592 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 2007

entitled to qualified immunity, so are the defendants in this action. … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ damages claims.

Saraco v. Hallett

831 F. Supp. 1154 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1993

Finally, with respect to plaintiffs’ contention that the FLSA is a waiver of sovereign immunity and that general jurisdiction statutes such as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 establish that federal district courts are courts of … See 36 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2i Section 216(b) includes additional qualifying language which is not present in the Red Cross charter—that suit may be maintained in federal or state courts of competent jurisdiction. See e.g.

SPRING

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2025

Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims based on qualified immunity, ECF No. 43 at 13–17, which shields officials from liability for damages when their conduct “does not violate clearly … Courts may address these prongs in either order, and either prong suffices to establish qualified immunity. Peroza-Benitez, 994 F.3d at 165.

VEMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2026

However, the “ultimate analysis is whether a defendant has established absolute prosecutorial immunity from a given claim.” Fogle, 957 F.3d at 161. … “To earn the protections of absolute immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage, a defendant must show that the conduct triggering absolute immunity clearly appears on the face of the complaint.” Weimer v.

COLEMAN v. GALLAGHER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2023

Qualified immunity does not protect Officer Gallagher because Mr. Coleman’s right to be free from the excessive force used was clearly established at the time. … Gallagher is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Roa v. City of Bethlehem

782 F. Supp. 1008 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1991

With respect to the Bethlehem police defendants, the court previously determined that their conduct was protected by qualified immunity and we stand by that determination for the reasons outlined in our original memorandum … Moreover, even if we were to reverse our decision on the qualified immunity issue, the record does not otherwise support imposition of liability against the Bethlehem police under § 1983.

JACKSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

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 person … the injury, the facts alleged show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

SAIDI v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2024

Qualified immunity bars Mr. … Sept. 26, 2024) (“The Court dismisses the Fourteenth Amendment claim on qualified-immunity grounds because there is no clearly established right against malicious prosecution under the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .”

Woolfolk v. Duncan

872 F. Supp. 1381 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1995

First, I cannot conclude as a matter of law that Woolfolk was not “otherwise qualified” for medical treatment, hospitalization, or referral to specialty care because the record does not establish that any factor apart from … Woolfolk's second amended complaint alleges that he was discriminated against because he has tested positive for HIV; he does not allege that he was discriminated against because he has developed Acquired Immune Deficiency

Berthesi v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation

246 F. Supp. 2d 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2003

Plaintiff has presented no evidence of why his complaint qualifies for any of the three exceptions described above. … Rather, a plaintiff can establish liability based on a municipal policy or custom only if the plaintiff has both connected the policy to a constitutional injury and “adduced evidence of scienter on the part of a municipal

In re Grand Jury Investigation

317 F. Supp. 792 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 1970

Although there is no separate section in the statute which defines the procedural steps to be followed in making an application for immunity, the legislative history clearly demonstrates that Section 2514 is * * * patterned … Both interests counsel a strict construction of the immunity statute and suggest that it should be applied only after the necessity for doing so has been established. 304 F.2d at 635 .

Greene, Tweed of Delaware, Inc. v. Dupont Dow Elastomers, L.L.C.

202 F.R.D. 418 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 2001

Accordingly, the party asserting waiver of work product immunity, rather than the party asserting the work product protection, has the burden of establishing waiver. Id.; see Aull v. … With respect to work product immunity, the issue is whether plaintiff has established waiver.

Bieros v. Nicola

860 F. Supp. 226 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1994

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 523 , 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1865-66 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), it is not clearly defined when an arrest ends and pretrial detention begins, nor are there any cases in this Circuit clearly explaining the dichotomy … Whether Plaintiff is considered to be an arrestee or a pretrial detainee, under either status, Plaintiff clearly states a claim.