Case law

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.

Adams v. American Bar Association

400 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 1975

The principle that judges are immune from suit except for actions clearly outside their jurisdiction is deeply rooted in Anglo-American law. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 , 80 U.S. 335 , 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871); Bauers v. … Since *226 plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendant members of the judiciary were acting outside their jurisdiction, the doctrine of judicial immunity bars relief against all named judges.

CIACCIO v. UPPER SAUCON TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields police officers from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Though the burden of asserting a qualified immunity defense is on the law enforcement officer,” the plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Williams v. Lehigh County Dept. of Corrections

19 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1998

This court dismissed that case in its entirety upon defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon issues of qualified immunity, failure to state a proper constitutional claim, and *411 failure to establish municipal … Baker was aware of Officer Gonzales’ rehiring, such actions do not constitute the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow v.

Goussis v. Kimball

813 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 1993

immunities secured by the Constitution.” … Defendants assert that the ABIM is qualified as a charity under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Id.

ESTATE OF RONALD SINGLETARY v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established

Dooley v. City of Philadelphia

153 F. Supp. 2d 628 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2001

Qualiñed Immunity The individual defendants Timo-ney, Norris, Small, and Zappille contend that even if they committed a constitutional violation, they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Anderson v. … First Amendment rights were not clearly established cannot be sustained....

Anderson v. United States

744 F. Supp. 641 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1990

The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit, unless it waives its sovereign immunity. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 , 61 S.Ct. 767, 769 , 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941); see also Heller v. … Prematurity of Suit Clearly, plaintiff could not have instituted this action without first having filed an administrative claim.

Doe v. Boyertown Area School District

10 F. Supp. 3d 637 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2014

In the School District Reply, the School District defendants argue that the doctrines of high public official immunity and qualified immunity exempt the named school district individual defendants from suit. … and qualified immunity exempt the named individual defendants from suit is dismissed without *652 prejudice to raise it again after determination of the current 12(b)(6) motion, the School District Motion to Dismiss.

Santiago v. City of Philadelphia

72 F.R.D. 619 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1976

Separate hearings would have to be held to establish the damages of the individual members. … If the class members have to establish their injury individually, a 23(b)(2) action is not appropriate. Significant issues also may be encountered in determining the defendants’ immunity from damages.

LOPEZ v. NICHOLS

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

To analyze whether qualified immunity applies, the court must ask “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would have been clear to a reasonable … The Supreme Court’s recent preference has been for lower courts to decide qualified immunity cases on the basis of the clearly established prong when they are able to do so, on the theory that deciding whether there has

Walton v. CORVI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2025

not clearly established whether probable cause for one charge defeats a malicious prosecution claim. … However, Defendant Schade’s qualified immunity argument specifically addresses the Third Circuit’s “any crime” rule and whether it was clearly established at the time that probable cause for one charge does not defeat a

RIDGEWAY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2026

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when “the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rosenau v. … Absent this information, Defendants have simply not done enough to establish that Jubilee or Chapman are entitled to high public official immunity. B.

WILLIAMS v. WHITAKER

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

“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.” … Clearly, neither Valko nor Whitaker is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’ s Section 1983 claims. IV.

Joyner v. School District of Philadelphia

313 F. Supp. 2d 495 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2004

It is well-established under Pennsylvania law that such statements cannot support a cause of action for defamation. … Under the PSTCA, school districts are immune from liability “for any damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act of the local agency or an employee thereof or any other person.” 35 This immunity

STEELY v. CLEMONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2021

Qualified Immunity – Review of Applicable Law “Qualified immunity is not merely immunity from liability, but rather immunity from suit, operating to free the recipient from the burdens of litigation.” … Because Steely has not established a constitutional violation, this Court does not reach the question of qualified immunity. 6.

Vecchione v. Wohlgemuth

426 F. Supp. 1297 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1977

If there is no such qualified person we will continue the payment of benefits to the beneficiary until a legal guardian is appointed and files as Representative Payee. … United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506, 513 , 60 S.Ct. 653 , 84 L.Ed. 894 (1940) (involving the immunity of an Indian nation from suit). 30 .

United States ex rel. Hansuer v. Commonwealth

294 F. Supp. 542 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1968

Applying these established legal principles to the facts of this case, we note that petitioner has neither directly nor collaterally attacked his conviction and sentence. … In addition, aside from the merits of whether petitioner is entitled to the documents he requests, construing this petition as a civil rights action, it is clearly established that judges are immune from liability under the

Carchman v. Korman Corp.

456 F. Supp. 730 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1978

The disco dancers, vegetarians, et alia who we hypothesized would qualify under the Means standard, pp. 735-736 supra, would also qualify under a “speech” or “association” related definition of “class-based animus,” for any … Yet, Griffin clearly intended its “class” requirement to serve a limiting function.

United States ex rel. Whitaker v. Callaway

371 F. Supp. 585 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1974

Whitaker contends that he has clearly established that significant possibility by the fact that he failed the audiometric test administered approximately two weeks after enlistment, and that when retested about a week thereafter … Since he has not established a significant possibility that he would have been found unfit if the test had been administered, a fortiori he has not established the fact of unfitness.