Case law

ALEXANDER v. EATON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … As indicated above, qualified immunity requires a fact intensive analysis where qualified immunity will apply if there was a violation of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established. Saucier v.

ANGLEMEYER v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2022

Defense of Qualified Immunity to Excessive Force Claim: The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from monetary damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The application of qualified immunity hinges on whether a reasonable officer could have believed his actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed.

Sheeran v. M. A. Bruder & Sons, Inc.

524 F. Supp. 567 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1981

By unanimous motion, the Committee sustained MAB’s position, finding that plaintiff was not qualified under the DOT regulations to return to his previous work. … intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities.

Degregorio v. O'Bannon

86 F.R.D. 109 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 1980

Wherefore, so Degregorio argues, he is still actively engaged in genuinely adversary litigation on behalf of a class he is qualified to champion. … This litigation has been conducted on behalf of a clearly defined class of persons whose interest in it is in no way impaired by Degregorio’s lapse in eligibility.

Associated Tel. Answering Exch. v. Am. Tel. & Tel.

492 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1980

DOCTRINE OF STATE ACTION IMMUNITY Defendants premise their motion to dismiss on the theory that the CCSII tariff is subject to regulation by the PUC and thus is immune from an antitrust challenge under the state action doctrine … Since the PUC has not yet considered the CCSII tariff, this matter is clearly distinguishable from the Mobilfone case.

Associated Telephone Answering Exchanges, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

492 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1980

DOCTRINE OF STATE ACTION IMMUNITY Defendants premise their motion to dismiss on the theory that the CCSII tariff is subject to regulation by the PUC and thus is immune from an antitrust challenge under the state action doctrine … Since the PUC has not yet considered the CCSII tariff, this matter is clearly distinguishable from the Mobilfone case.

Campbell v. Pa. Sch. Boards Ass'n

336 F. Supp. 3d 482 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2018

under the First Amendment by the Noerr - Pennington doctrine; (4) the individual defendants are shielded by qualified immunity; and (5) plaintiffs have not adduced evidence to support the imposition of punitive damages. … Because those two issues are dispositive of the case, the Court does not reach the parties' contentions with respect to state action, qualified immunity, or punitive damages. A.

Reyer v. Saint Francis Country House

243 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2017

Defendants urge that Reyer cannot establish that he was qualified for the Maintenance Work III position at the time of his termination because he was unable to perform the essential functions of the position, without or without … A qualified individual has the burden of identifying an accommodation whose costs do not clearly exceed its benefits. Walton v. Mental Health Ass’n of Southeastern Pennsylvania, 168 F.3d 661, 670 (3d Cir. 1999).

FRANCISCO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2026

as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Whether qualified immunity applies depends on “(1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s conduct

Pahle v. Colebrookdale Township

227 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2002

Officer Fryer’s Qualified Immunity Defense to Ted R. Pahle’s Federal Claims Officer. … Fryer raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which would absolve her of Plaintiffs’ claims if reasonable officers could have believed their conduct was lawful “in light of clearly-established law and the information

JENNINGS v. BORST

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2019

They do not highlight particular claims against them and analyze the pleadings nor do they conduct any of the other analysis necessary to establish qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity” is not a talismanic phrase that relieves Defendants of their burden to show that their actions did not violate Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights.

WOMACK v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2024

Count IV – Failure to Intervene The Officer Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity for any alleged failure to intervene because the Third Circuit has not yet 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.”

United States v. Bloom

450 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1978

The findings of the Court on facts underlying a claim of immunity, including resolution of credibility issues, will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. United States v. … Mathews clearly understood that the SEC was not promising to refrain from any prosecution.

Shepherdson v. Nigro

5 F. Supp. 2d 305 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1998

for which he is entitled to absolute immunity from suit for damages. … Thus, Congress was clearly acting to expand judicial immunity and not to truncate it. Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable federal constitutional claim.

Carter v. City of Philadelphia

4 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1998

Clearly, state criminal laws and state victim impact laws represent the policy of the state. Thus, a city official pursues her duties as a state agent when enforcing state law or policy. Cf Scott v. … The Amended Complaint clearly alleges that the City was responsible for the policies leading to Carter’s conviction—not the policies of the still unidentified Roe.

Riccobono v. Whitpain Township

497 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1980

On its face this claim of constitutional deprivation is substantial and clearly not frivolous. … THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY.

Jones v. Johnson

402 F. Supp. 992 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 1975

Such status cannot be determined, clearly, until after a conviction or entry of a plea. … However, this was not definitively established in a suit before the State Supreme Court until 1974 in Rambeau.

Lowell v. Wantz

85 F.R.D. 286 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1980

This case is clearly distinguishable from Parks , however, because state action was found there where private persons were given powers traditionally reserved to state officials. … Thus Lowell has failed to establish state action pursuant to the “significant involvement-joint participants” analysis.

United States v. Nacrelli

468 F. Supp. 241 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1979

The court erred in not sufficiently allowing the defense to establish that Herman Fontaine threatened to kill the defendant in January of 1978. 22. … Immunity for Defense Witnesses. The defendant’s fifth allegation of error is based on the court’s denial of a motion to immunize defense witnesses.

Drake v. Perrin

593 F. Supp. 1176 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1984

Drake; Review of depositions of Michael Drake and Terry McQuade; research re: qualified immunity defense — 7 hours (Emphasis mine) These examples are repeated throughout the affidavit. … Again, on March 14, “research re: qualified immunity defense” is claimed (7 hours), with a repetition of the same legal point for 4.5 hours on March 15, for a total of 11.5 hours. I consider this grossly excessive.