Case law

CURTIS v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2023

He held qualified immunity shielded the remaining Defendants from Curtis’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims because they “could reasonably believe they were not violating clearly established law when they required Mr … To assess whether qualified immunity exists, courts consider: (1) whether the facts “show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

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.

HANDY v. NORDO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2025

There is no clearly established stand-alone right to intervention by officers to prevent malicious prosecution or deprivation of liberty without due process, and no such right was clearly established during 2011 and 2013 … The Court emphasizes that, because qualified immunity bars these claims, the Court dismisses them again with prejudice, as the accompanying order will state.

Dill v. COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA

3 F. Supp. 2d 583 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1998

DPW is clearly a state agency and thus eligible for Eleventh Amendment protection. See 71 Pa. Stat. … . § 61 (establishing the Department of Public Welfare as an administrative department of the Commonwealth); Flesch v. Eastern Pennsylvania Psych.

SHINE v. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2023

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff alleges a Fourth Amendment violation against Trooper Doe, I find that any such claim is precluded by qualified immunity.8 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing … 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

BETHLEHEM MANOR VILLAGE, LLC v. CITY OF BETHLEHEM

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2024

is not so “clearly established” as to prevent him from otherwise being entitled to qualified immunity for a discretionary function of his job, i.e., rejecting BMV’s zoning application. … The defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the alleged conduct did not violate a clearly established right or (2) a reasonable person would not have known the alleged conduct was unlawful.

HART v. TARRANT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2019

to qualified immunity. … As parole officers, Officers Tarrant and Mackey are shielded by qualified immunity “if it is shown that [their] conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

DONAHUE v. BOROUGH OF COLLINGDALE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2022

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory … Defendants generally argue that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no constitutional violation, and, even if there was, it was not clearly established.

ROUND v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 2020

Failure to establish either step is fatal to an attempt to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. … Since the Court has discretion to perform the two-pronged qualified immunity analysis in the order it deems appropriate, Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236, it will proceed first with the “clearly established” inquiry.

WIGGS v. FOLEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2021

The Law Governing Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is not merely immunity from liability, but rather immunity from suit, operating to free the recipient from the burdens of litigation … Where a plaintiff fails to establish the underlying offense through his or her allegations, “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

BOLDER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendant seeks summary judgment on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

United States v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc.

501 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1980

Immunity. The defendant Hollis P. … Even assuming the existence of such exculpatory evidence, there is clearly no requirement that ail of the evidence in a prosecutor’s possession must be presented to a grand jury in order to sustain an indictment.

Madden v. Runyon

899 F. Supp. 217 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 1995

To establish a prima facie ease for age discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that a) he or she is over forty years of age, b) he or she is qualified for the position in question, c) he or she suffered an adverse employment … To establish a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act against the Postal Service, a plaintiff must establish that a) he or she is an “individual with a disability,” b) he or she is “otherwise qualified” for the position

RUSFELDT v. CITY OF READING

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2024

established law, which entitles [him] to qualified immunity from prosecution.” … Qualified Immunity Further, Officer Morar avers he is entitled to qualified immunity. The Court agrees.

WHITE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from monetary damages under Section 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights … Thus qualified immunity will not shield Gerrard’s Estate as to White’s claim of deliberate deception. See, e.g., Dennis, 19 F.4th at 289-90.

In Re the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RR Co. Securities & Antitrust Litigation

387 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 1974

be diverted to enrich the present stockholders including Amoskeag, the owner of 99% of the stock, the court concluded that the public interest would nevertheless be better served by insuring that petitioners would not be immune … But, as we have stated, these plaintiffs cannot maintain the present action because a recovery by Amoskeag would violate established principles of equity.”

National Railroad Passenger v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

665 F. Supp. 402 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1987

While generally immune from local taxes and assessments the United States has the power to waive its immunity, in whole or in part. … Amtrak was established by Congress as a United States corporation for profit. 45 U.S.C. § 541 . The many goals of Congress in establishing and maintaining Amtrak were set forth in §§ 501 and 501a.

Tyrrell v. Taylor

394 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 1975

These the court found sufficient to establish immunity. 38 Defendant Rundle, however, has offered no evidence, testimonial or otherwise, in support of a defense of official immunity. We, therefore, reject his defense. … Miller, 40 the Third Circuit clearly anticipated both Scheuer and Fidtler in requiring a defendant to make a record in order to establish immunity or good faith. Scheuer itself was decided prior to trial.

GRABER v. BORESKY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2021

In Oliver, no discovery was necessary because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim, and even if he had, no clearly established right had been violated. See Oliver, 858 F.3d at 194–96. … Here, qualified immunity cannot be determined without establishing a record. 39 Id. ¶ 6, 9.