Case law

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

RAWLINGS v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2022

In addition, for Plaintiff to overcome the Officers’ qualified immunity defense, clearly established law at the time of the alleged constitutional wrong must have put the excessiveness of the force used “beyond debate.” … , and the officers were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

GROOMS HAULING, LLC v. ROBINSON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2020

In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly-established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the court … “Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity . . . if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly[-]established law, that their

ONYIAH v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2023

The City Defendants argue that Count IV of the Amended Complaint is barred by qualified immunity as against Jenkins and Lucke because there is no clearly established constitutional obligation to intervene in a coerced confession … [at issue] for purposes of qualified immunity.”5 Porter v. 5 Plaintiff cites four appellate court cases from other circuits in support of his position that the Named Detectives had a clearly established duty to intervene

ALBURG v. JONES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2025

All defendants invoke qualified immunity. … If we find that the right was not clearly established, the inquiry ends and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

In Re Asbestos Products Liability Lit.(no. Vi)

770 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2011

Therefore, while "the federal question ordinarily must appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; an anticipated or actual federal defense generally does not qualify a case for removal." Id. … Clearly, in Todd, Plaintiff alleged an entirely non-federal cause of action. Plaintiff did not even sue a federal officer.

BURDSALL v. WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2021

to qualified immunity under § 1983 “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … The “clearly established” element means that the legal principle at issue must “clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances before him”. Id. at 590.

Jones v. Culinary Manager II

30 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1998

[bjecause qualified immunity is available only in a personal capacity suit.” Biggs, 66 F.3d at 61 . … Finally, Defendants have asserted qualified immunity as a defense to any individual capacity claims. See (Def.s’ Ans. Affirm. Def. at ¶2).

Aronson v. United States

595 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1984

The individual defendants are immune from liability for the claims based on the filing of the City of Philadelphia suit. The doctrine of official immunity protects the government lawers’ decision to institute that suit. … Aronson as a necessary party, in his official capacity, was also an act not violating clearly established constitutional rights of which defendants should have known. Deposition of Louis Thrasher, pp. 13-19; Harlow v.

Goldberg v. Battles

196 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1961

Section 601(a) clearly authorizes the Secretary to initiate investigations when he deems it necessary. … , if the subpoena should later be determined a nullity, then the witness is not entitled to immunity.

Arnett v. Aspin

846 F. Supp. 1234 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1994

qualify her for the GS-7 level. … But, employers who discriminate against women who are black or married are clearly in violation of Title VII. See Hicks v.

MCNEIL v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 2022

Qualified immunity is a defense to Bivens actions, as it “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 … is clearly established.”

In Re City of Philadelphia Litigation

938 F. Supp. 1264 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1996

The question of immunity under state law differs in two important respects from the question of immunity under federal law. First, the issue of immunity under state law is an issue of immunity from liability. … But because his two colleagues felt that the Court of Appeals did not have authority to rule on that issue at this phase of the ease, Judge Scirica’s observations with respect to the issue of immunity, though quite clearly

Drum v. Nasuti

648 F. Supp. 888 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1986

Prosecutorial immunity, however, does not apply to actions taken by prosecutors “clearly outside of their jurisdiction.” Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581, 590 (3d Cir.) … Thus, the law establishes that defendants are absolutely immune from liability for their testimony in his criminal contempt proceeding.

CHRISTMANN v. LINK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2021

Qualified Immunity Next, Davison argues qualified immunity bars the § 1983 claim against her. … See 12 McClain also argues he is entitled to qualified immunity.

ESTATE OF SHAWN MORCHO v. YEADON BOROUGH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 2024

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must consider: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that it would … to the “clearly established” prong.

Simmons v. City of Philadelphia

728 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1990

They claim they are not only immune but that their immunity is not waivable, even if they negligently failed to do so before. … Clearly, both of these arguments rest on the premise that the Act and the ordinance are contradictory or inconsistent. We disagree. Id. 492 A.2d at 764 .

United States v. Quatermain

467 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1979

This prejudice to the defendant resulting from the joinder of charges will clearly be alleviated by separate trials; the burden to the government is not great. … The government not only failed to meet its burden, it made no effort to establish that any evidence to be used was derived from legitimate independent sources.

Sykes v. Glaxo-SmithKline

484 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2007

Congress established this system to handle any safety concerns with childhood vaccines. … The agency is likely to have a thorough understanding of its own regulation and its objectives and is ‘uniquely qualified’ to comprehend the likely impact of state requirements.”

Barnes v. Various

770 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2011

Therefore, while “the federal question ordinarily must appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; an anticipated or actual federal defense generally does not qualify a case for removal.” Id. … Clearly, in Todd, Plaintiff alleged an entirely non-federal cause of action. Plaintiff did not even sue a federal officer.