Case law

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.

Garcia v. United States

896 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 1995

While the FTCA does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for a claim based on conduct that violates only the Constitution, it clearly does waive that sovereign immunity for claims based on state law. … established constitutional due process rights); Glickman v.

EDWARDS v. RICE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2021

Courts can begin the qualified immunity analysis with either step. /d “Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a Mr. … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44.

Ettinger v. Johnson

410 F. Supp. 519 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1976

The “continuing discrimination” cases cited by plaintiff are clearly distinguishable because they relate to the private employment sector and therefore are not subject to the principle of sovereign immunity and the limitations … On. the contrary, each court clearly indicated that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is available as a defense if there has not been exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Byers v. Intuit, Inc.

564 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2008

I must qualify this holding in one regard. … NSI is clearly not a federal agency, and the NSI fees are clearly not charged by a federal agency for federal services....

ROUND v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2022

For a defendant to be afforded the protection of qualified immunity, two well-established elements must be met. … “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability for civil damages as long as his conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Naisha v.

Santos v. Franklin

493 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1980

A panel of the Third Circuit held that the doctrine of intra-military immunity established in Feres v. … Even under the relatively narrow view of intramilitary immunity taken by the panel in Jaffee, Franklin has established his immunity from suit for ordering Santos to active duty.

Sarfaty v. Sarfaty

534 F. Supp. 701 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1982

Since the issuance of the injunction in the instant case would clearly impede a writ of garnishment issued by the state courts, the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act does not provide a basis to hear the claim against the Navy … I only point out that plaintiff faces a formidable hurdle if he ultimately seeks to establish jurisdiction over his claim against the Navy on the basis of § 702 of the A.P.A. 6 .

Baldi v. City of Philadelphia

609 F. Supp. 162 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 8, 1985

In order to establish the liability of the four defendant police officers under section 1983, plaintiff must establish that her decedent was deprived of a constitutional or statutory right and that such deprivation was caused … Plaintiff’s position is clearly and totally wrong. It would eviscerate the removal statute in cases involving civil rights claims, which are indisputably claims or rights arising under federal law.

LAWSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2022

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 would have … Id. at 382-83 (“It would be strange to say that right X is clearly established just because right Y is clearly established and happens to prohibit the same conduct.”).

TOMEI v. OFFICE OF THE 32ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT DELAWARE COUNTY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2021

Martinez has responded that, among other things, any amendment would be futile because the doctrine of qualified immunity protects her. II. … Clearly Established Right Qualified immunity shields government officials conducting discretionary tasks from civil damages liability “unless the official violated a statutory or

Hamilton Bank v. Export-Import Bank of US

634 F. Supp. 195 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1986

We reach this conclusion based upon established precedent and the failure of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to overrule that precedent. … We find and conclude, however, that, assuming the plaintiff suffered an insured loss, the loss clearly comes within the political risk provisions of the applicable insurance contracts, and thus, Eximbank is the actual insurer

PENA v. CITY OF LANCASTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2023

Whether the Constitutional Right Was “Clearly Established” The U.S. … Muñoz’s constitutional rights, this Court cannot, on its own, decree those rights to be clearly established. For that reason, Officer Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity as to the shooting of Mr.

ALVARADO v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2024

Alvarado further argues that individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because caselaw had clearly established their conduct as unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 16. Finally, Ms. … Such conduct was clearly established as a violation of the Fourth Amendment before June 4, 2021, so individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Brzozowski v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

165 F. Supp. 3d 251 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2016

First, a state may waive its immunity and consent to suit in federal court. Id. … Thus, to establish a prima facie "reverse discrimination” case, a plaintiff must show: "(1) he or she was qualified for the position in question, (2) he or she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) the evidence is

MacK v. Johnson

430 F. Supp. 1139 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1977

In light of these considerations the Court refused to establish rigid and extensive due process requirements for prison disciplinary hearings, but did establish certain minimal standards. … Creamer, 465 F.2d 179 (3d Cir. 1972) was decided, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals had clearly established the rule for this Circuit that inmates in plaintiffs’ position must be afforded the opportunity to tell their side

Cohen v. Township of Cheltenham, Pennsylvania

174 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2001

The Board clearly has authority to grant the requested reasonable accommodation. … Taken together, these two factors clearly outweigh any state governance of the Board’s procedures and compel the conclusion that the Board is not entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. E.

ALICEA v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2022

Qualified immunity protects government officials like police officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Defendants also argue that qualified immunity protects the individual defendants against Count III, because the right to be free from suppression of exculpatory evidence under the Fourteenth Amendment was not clearly established