Case law

BROCK v. CORRECTIONS EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT)

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2020

Under a qualified immunity defense, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … 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

Posttape Associates v. Eastman Kodak Company

387 F. Supp. 184 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1974

establish “(a) that such contractual provisions and terms do not contravene public policy and (b) that the provisions and terms of the contract clearly and unequivocally spell out the intent to grant such immunity and relief … Defendant has not established that the provisions and terms of the notice clearly and unequivocally spell out the intent to limit defendant’s responsibility for the negligent manufacturing of the film.

Callen v. OULU O/Y

711 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 1989

To qualify for this, a man must be available for work and a longshoreman is docked $144 against his yearly amount for each day he does not check in with the center. … A foreign state which is not entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1602-1611 “shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances

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.

Win & Son, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

162 F. Supp. 3d 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2016

Plaintiffs revealed their misunderstanding most clearly when they make the following argument in response to the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment: ... … The City is therefore immune from these claims.

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.

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.

Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

804 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1992

here and renders PP & L immune from antitrust liability. … However, with the enactment of section 524 in July 1986, the Pennsylvania legislature expressly invested the PUC with the authority to "order” electric utilities to establish conservation and load management programs "that

Ramara, Inc. v. Westfield Insurance

69 F. Supp. 3d 490 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2014

Since Ramara has failed to establish that Axe alleges any bodily injury ‘caused, in whole or in part’ by any acts or omissions of Fortress, Ramará does not qualify as an additional insured.” … Due to the immunity conferred by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Mr.

Peters v. Delaware River Port Authority

809 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1992

It may also establish, maintain, and operate a rapid transit system between certain points in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (Compact, Art I). … In invoking the Elrod-Branti exception, the defendant bears the burden of establishing how affiliation with a particular party is important to the job.

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.

Maldonado v. Houstoun

177 F.R.D. 311 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1997

In this case, the numerosity requirement is clearly satisfied. Indeed, defendants do not contest numerosity. … With respect to plaintiffs’ Privileges and Immunities Clause argument, the Court finds that plaintiffs would be hard-pressed to establish a violation of this constitutional provision.

McVeigh v. Philadelphia National Bank

796 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 1992

It appears that Dorrance never placed in writing any description of the alleged plan or the criteria for eligibility under the alleged plan; nor did he establish a clearly demarcated source of funding for the alleged plan … Plaintiff has not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he would have qualified to participate in the pension plan that he alleges had been established by Dorrance’s actions.

In re Philadelphia Entertainment & Development Partners, LP

569 B.R. 394 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2017

The court also refused to determine whether sovereign immunity applies to the fraudulent conveyance claims. Id. at 134-35 . C. … Immunity In its cross-appeal, the Commonwealth asserts an alternative basis to affirm the bankruptcy court’s order: that the Trustee’s fraudulent conveyance claims are foreclosed by its Eleventh Amendment Immunity.

Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

160 F.R.D. 51 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1995

immunity should be asserted.” … The federal rules clearly require witnesses to attend duly noticed depositions and clearly give all parties the right to seek protective orders when warranted.

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

International Raw Materials, Inc. v. Stauffer Chemical Co.

767 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1991

IRM denies that ANSAC qualifies for Webb-Pomerene immunity and has cross-moved for summary judgment on the basis of the virtually unrebutted substantive allegations recited in its complaint. … Professor Northrup states in his affidavit, ¶ 9: ANSAC’s economic interest in the Port of Portland terminal is clearly evidenced by the terms of the agreement of October 26, 1987, between HBM and ANSAC.

HILLER v. SOGO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity generally shields “government officials performing discretionary functions 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 known.”33 When a qualified immunity defense is raised on a motion to dismiss, the Third Circuit considers

Fox v. Department of Housing & Urban Development

532 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 1982

The limitation on the waiver of sovereign immunity is, however, defined and it is not that broad. … . § 1723a(a) (Emphasis added) Clearly, some kinds of injunctions can be entered against GNMA; only those entered against its property are impermissible.