Case law

Fields v. City of Philadelphia

166 F. Supp. 3d 528 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2016

immunity, “our case law does not clearly establish a right to videotape police officers performing their official duties.” … Affirming the district court and rejecting officers’ claim of qualified immunity, the court of appeals held qualified immunity did not apply to officers because it was clearly established, "gathering information about government

Vanderklok v. United States

140 F. Supp. 3d 373 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2015

Even if the Individual Officers lacked probable cause to arrest Vanderklok, they would be protected by qualified immunity because they did not violate a right that was “clearly established.” … This is not so clearly established as to override the Individual Officers’ qualified immunity.

Seals v. City of Lancaster

553 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2008

Officer Laser is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity Officer Laser also contends he is entitled to summary judgment on a theory of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Saucier v. … With respect to the second factor in a qualified immunity analysis under Saucier, the court must determine whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable

Jubilee v. Horn

975 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1997

Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … The Court later clarified this objective test by explaining that “to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Egolf v. Witmer

421 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity Because A Reasonable Person Would Not Have Believed They Were Violating Clearly Established Rights. … The Supreme Court has directed that regardless of whether the rights at issue are ones that “a reasonable person would have known” or are “clearly established,” I must begin my evaluation of a qualified immunity defense by

Allen v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFF. OF PHILADELPHIA

644 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is “ ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ ” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (quoting Mitchell v. … In considering the second prong of the Saucier test, the Third Circuit clarified that “[a] right is clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Goldwire v. City of Philadelphia

130 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2015

An officer asserting an' entitlement to qualified immunity must claim that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. Behrens v. … violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established.

Gremo v. Karlin

363 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2005

Qualified Immunity All individual defendants assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as to the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … Clearly Established Right Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil claims for damages unless there is a deprivation of an actual constitutional right and “that right was clearly established at the time

Thompson v. Penna. Parole Board Member Jefferson

544 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1982

The case was remanded to this court for further factual development to determine whether Jefferson was entitled to absolute or qualified immunity and, if Jefferson was entitled to qualified immunity, whether he could satisfy … The Court held that governmental officials are entitled to immunity so long as they “do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Doe v. Methacton School District

880 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual Methacton Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity for all constitutional claims against them. The burden to show immunity is on the defendant. … The test for whether qualified immunity should be applied is whether: (1) government officials (2) performed discretionary functions (3) that did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (4) of which

DeBellis v. Kulp

166 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2001

Qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The next inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the right allegedly infringed was clearly established at the time of the encounter.

Estate of Massey ex rel. Co-Administrators of her Estate Hodges v. City of Philadelphia

118 F. Supp. 3d 679 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2015

Because the Third Circuit has clearly held that the burden of pleading the defense of qualified immunity falls on the defendant, Defendants have not yet met their burden to sufficiently plead qualified immunity, and Plaintiff … ’s conduct allegedly violated were clearly established.”).

Zapach v. Dismuke

134 F. Supp. 2d 682 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2001

The Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Jordan v. Berman

792 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1992

whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the contours of the right at the time of the alleged violation were sufficiently clear in light of … The court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that by 1982, and thus ipso facto by 1989, it was clearly established, particularly in view of North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v.

Ankele v. Hambrick

286 F. Supp. 2d 485 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2003

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, qualified immunity is not available where a plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and the right was clearly established when violated.

Muslim v. Frame

897 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1995

Whether the Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final argument is that summary judgment should be granted because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers from damages claims when their alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Henderson v. City of Philadelphia

853 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defense counsel argues that Gress is entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly, his actions were not objectively reasonable and were not done in good faith. Counsel has not provided any other reason why Gress would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Brantley v. Wysocki

145 F. Supp. 3d 407 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

Corporal Wysocki is entitled to qualified immunity on Brantley’s First Amendment Retaliation claim “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … The next question is determining if Brantley’s constitutional right is clearly established.

Cameron v. Montgomery County Child Welfare Service

471 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1979

The defendants’ motion is based on judicial or quasi-judicial immunity and a qualified good faith immunity. As the Supreme Court held in Pierson v. … in support thereof (or the lack of that authority), whether a claim has been stated by *767 a specific count, and whether a specific right was or was not clearly established.

L.R. v. School District

60 F. Supp. 3d 584 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2014

doctrine of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps: “(1) whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time