Case law

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.

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 .

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

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.

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

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

United States Ex Rel. Savage v. Arnold

403 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1975

There are no facts to show willfulness on the part of any of the named defendants, nor to establish the alleged conspiracy. … Attorneys are immune from control or interference through mandamus or otherwise by private citizens or by courts. Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1967) ; United States v.

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.

Chester Upland School District v. Commonwealth

861 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2012

The Court need not confront the specifics of appropriate relief until liability has been established. 43 IX. … immunity intact”). .

Bazargani v. Haverford State Hospital

90 F. Supp. 2d 643 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2000

Plaintiffs prima facie case To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on her national origin, plaintiff must show: (1) that she belongs to a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for the position; and … Clearly, the act complained of (plaintiffs termination from employment) is the same in both actions.

Figueroa v. Clark

810 F. Supp. 613 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1992

These sections establish criminal liability for certain deprivations of civil rights. … All of the allegations against the prosecutor and public defender defendants clearly have the fairness of plaintiffs trial at their core.

United States v. Ditizio

530 F. Supp. 175 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1982

The letter agreement with Fardella setting forth the ground rules for the proffer discussion established several conditions (in addition to the “derivative use” possibility, discussed above) plainly designed to guarantee … In the exercise of this right, the accused . . . must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.

Goldhaber v. Foley

519 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1981

Thus, we conclude that sovereign immunity does not bar this action. … This action is not barred by sovereign immunity. 7.

Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. Miller

147 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1956

In the Gully case [ 299 U.S. 109 , 57 S.Ct. 99 ], the court emphasized that in determining the existence or non-existence of a federal right or immunity “ ‘the federal nature of the right to be established is decisive * * … Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission, D.C.D.N.J.1954, 120 F.Supp. 337, 342 , affirmed 3 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 717 , can clearly not be substantially affected by the payment of $95,-366.67 salaries (paragraphs 4 and

MCCALL v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Thazhathel argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because McCall cannot establish prong one—that the delay in medical care violated a constitutional right or prong two— that the right was clearly established at

THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL TRISTIAN PAONE, BY AND THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE, MICHAEL PAONE, JR. AND LISA PAONE v. PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2024

Excessive force claim against Officers Lowery and DeSantis Qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly … As an affirmative defense, the burden of establishing qualified immunity falls on the official claiming it. , 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011).

Moorehead v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2024

establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity.” … The burden to establish qualified immunity rested with Defendants and they did not meet it. D.

Byars v. School District

942 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2013

4 are immune from liability with respect to Plaintiffs state tort claims. … While there are exceptions from the immunity granted under § 8541, none apply here.

BROWN v. MAY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2019

immunity protects Warden May from being sued in his personal capacity because the contours of the constitutional right were not clearly established. … “‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’”