Case law

Security & Data Technologies, Inc. v. School District

145 F. Supp. 3d 454 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2015

Defendants, nonetheless, argue that such a claim .is not permissible because Ackerman is entitled to qualified immunity. … According to Defendants, SDT's rights under Section 1981, as a white-owned corporation, were not clearly established.

LOWE v. LANCASTER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SOCIAL SERVICES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defense for Government Workers “[S]tate officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly … was the “right is clearly established. See id.

McClean v. Delaware County Housing Authority

220 F. Supp. 3d 607 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2016

“HUD”) to designate federal funds to state housing agencies to provide safe and affordable housing to low-income citizens. 1 Section 8 housing was later added to the Housing Act, and a Federal Choice Voucher Program was established … Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to bring a claim against anyone who, under color of state law, deprives the plaintiff of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and

KELLER v. TOWNSHIP OF LOWER PROVIDENCE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2020

Defendant argues that the force was not excessive, and that even if it was, he is protected by qualified immunity. … Nevertheless, Defendant may still be protected by qualified immunity if he made a reasonable mistake.

WAYNE v. CLARK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2022

or qualified immunity. … In other words, if we find that the alleged right was not clearly established, the inquiry ends and the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Schulz v. Hughes

250 F. Supp. 2d 470 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2003

. § 16.11(k) 4 and reiterated that Schulz had not demonstrated that he qualified for a waiver by proving that the requests were made were in the public interest. … incarcerated status, is entitled to a waiver of the search fees in toto, in part, or not at all, 5 and (2) whether the Government is required to provide him with a Vaughn Index for all records or documents for which it claims immunity

BUTLER v. MAYO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2025

Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … the constitutional right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred.

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.

ROGALSKI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2026

“An official sued under § 1983 for an alleged constitutional violation is entitled to qualified immunity unless he (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when he acted.” Stringer v. … Courts have noted that “the second prong of a qualified immunity analysis—whether the right allegedly violated was ‘clearly established’— presents unique difficulties at the pleading stage.” Id.

Luu v. Esterly

367 F. Supp. 3d 335 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2019

LVA moves to dismiss, arguing that it is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, and even if the Eleventh Amendment doesn't apply, the amended complaint does not establish that the school denied Luu a federally … Here, Luu has not pled any facts to establish that LVA affirmatively acted to place her in danger or increased danger.

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.’”

DIGGS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must consider whether the plaintiff’s factual allegations “make out a violation of a constitutional right” that was “clearly established

Ascolese v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

902 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 1995

This alleged treatment included comments skeptical of whether pregnancy qualifies as a disability. … To establish a prima facie case in the hiring context, the Court said, a plaintiff must “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she applied for an available position, for which she was qualified, but was rejected under

SILVERBERG v. DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC.

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

rights, “which were clearly established, and of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Oct. 25, 2021) (noting plaintiff’s “misguided” effort to overcome defendants’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by disputing their “entitlement to ‘qualified immunity’ based on violations of his ‘clearly established rights’”

Educational Equality League v. Tate

333 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 1971

As was clearly stated by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. … The standard when using a percentage rationale to establish a prima facie case of discrimination has always been the number of blacks qualified to fill the jobs in which the alleged discrimination is taking place.

POWNALL v. KRASNER

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

Television Show, Are Shielded by Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officials from claims for monetary damages “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

Kathleen S. v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF PA.

10 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1998

On the contrary, the record in this case clearly establishes that based on the Commonwealth’s past experience, the community placements ordered by the Court can be safely and efficiently effected within the eighteen month … As the record clearly establishes, it is the Commonwealth’s laudable policy that people with mental illness can better be treated in the community whenever community treatment is appropriate.

Mobley v. Tarlini

641 F. Supp. 2d 430 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2009

Plaintiff also argues against qualified immunity as an affirmative defense; however, since Defendant does not make such an argument, this Court will not consider it. IV. … Defendant did not rely on qualified immunity as an affirmative defense or in her Rule 12(c) Motion, but may do so in her Motion for Summary Judgment. 5 .

Sacred Heart Hospital v. Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare (In Re Sacred Heart Hospital)

204 B.R. 132 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1997

I, § 8, cl. 4 (“The Congress shall have Power [t]o ... establish uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies”). The Bankruptcy Clause is identical to the Indian Commerce Clause in both wording and scope. … However, the court did not clearly state the authority for finding such an all-encompassing waiver. It relied on §§ 106(b) and (c), and cited Langenkamp v.

Dabney v. Investment Corp. of America

82 F.R.D. 464 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 1979

The facts of this case clearly do not bring it within the above exception, since it appears that ICA, through its president, Richard J. Micheel, was well aware that Mr. … Criteria for admission to the bar are carefully established and maintained in order to guarantee some minimum level of competence within the legal profession.