Case law

RUSH v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2021

right was clearly established. … Clearly established right Qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly

Sprague v. Fitzpatrick

412 F. Supp. 910 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1976

The immunity of judges, from which immunity of prosecutors is derivative, does not extend to acts which are clearly outside their jurisdiction.” … I think quite clearly he is not, and I so hold today. The traditional considerations advanced in support of the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, see Bauers v.

Borough of Lansdale v. PP & L, INC.

426 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2006

Additionally, *282 even if the plaintiffs had established an issue of material fact, defendants are entitled to immunity under the Noerr Pennington doctrine. … The Settlement Agreement clearly and unambiguously applies only to wholesale stranded costs, not to retail stranded costs.

United States v. Eleven Vehicles

937 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1996

The “special factor” exception has been defined by the Supreme Court to refer to attorneys “qualified for the proceedings” in some specialized sense, rather than just in their general legal competence. … Clearly, any inquiry into the Government's probable cause requires this Court to examine the circumstances on October 30, 1991.

Lyon v. TEMPLE UNIV. OF COM. SYSTEM OF HIGHER ED.

507 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1981

Plaintiffs claim the implementation of Article III, Paragraph E resulted in substantial discrepancies in salaries between plaintiffs and certain females in their departments; these women are alleged to be equally or less qualified … basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires

THOMPSON v. SWIFT

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

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability . . . … that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

COLON v. KINNEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2023

“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 close the qualified immunity loop, we will consider whether a reasonable fact finder could determine the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Godfrey v. Upland Borough

246 F. Supp. 3d 1078 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2017

Defendants also argue that, to the extent Plaintiffs assert either a Due Process or First Amendment retaliation claim against the individual Upland Defendants, it would be barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Pa. 2014) (child custody proceedings qualify for Younger abstention), . Gwynedd Props., Inc. v.

Cerda v. MURPHY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2025

Qualified Immunity Murphy next argues that summary judgment should be granted because he had qualified immunity. … To determine if an officer has qualified immunity, the Court must: (1) define the right allegedly violated with a high degree of specificity; and (2) ask whether that right was clearly defined at the time of the incident

School Dist. of Warminster Tp. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.

72 F. Supp. 149 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1947

Congress subjected Defense Plant Corporation’s properties to local taxes ‘to the same extent according to its value as other real property is taxed’ indicated an intent to integrate Congressional permission to tax with established … Moreover, in the Hamilton case, the court clearly distinguished between two types of additional exactions.

Moore v. Pennsylvania Department of Military & Veterans Affairs

216 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2002

In addition to the unique disciplinary structure of the military establishment, the Court found another “special factor” dictated “that it would be inappropriate to provide enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy … state National Guard ... because of a determination that, if Congress had intended to encroach upon the special status of the military in our system by extending these protections, it would have expressed its intention clearly

WILLIAMS v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2022

Wetzel must be dismissed because Defendant Wetzel is entitled to qualified immunity.12 Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary … clearly established law at a high level of generality.”

Savitt v. City of Philadelphia

557 F. Supp. 321 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1983

The Court left open, however, the question of whether sovereign immunity could be established by the legislature. … Thus, the Act, while generally re-establishing sovereign immunity in Pennsylvania, sets forth an exception to this immunity where a person is injured by the operation of a municipal vehicle, as occurred to Mrs. Savitt.

Meyer v. Curran

397 F. Supp. 512 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1975

It is well established, however, that private persons cannot conspire with one entitled to immunity, since, in such event, there is no person acting under color of law “against whom [plaintiff] could state a valid claim.” … to court directive is also immune from suit.”

N.B.A. Credit Union, Inc. v. Hargrove

846 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1994

Given the circumstances, the New Depositors 23 may wish to terminate their relationship with Credit Union and establish a secure relationship with another financial institution, and the Credit Union members that,are clearly … Privileges and Immunities Clause Credit Union claims that its members rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause have been violated by the defendants’ actions.

STAPLES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2023

And the federal qualified immunity doctrine shields Defendant Cheriyan from a Section 1983 suit unless Plaintiff’s due process right was “clearly established at the time of the violation.” Harlow v. … Second, even if Plaintiff could establish a constitutional violation, Defendant Cheriyan would also be entitled to qualified immunity if such a constitutional violation is not clearly established under existing law.

HIGHTOWER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2023

Given these circumstances, Major is entitled to qualified immunity. … The “clearly established” inquiry at the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks “whether the right allegedly violated—defined in terms of the ‘particularized’ factual context of that case—was a ‘clearly established

Posttape Associates v. Eastman Kodak Co.

68 F.R.D. 323 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1975

Further a limitation or disclaimer of negligence must not contravene public policy and must clearly and unequivocally spell out the intent to grant such immunity and relief from liability. … In a Per Curiam opinion the Court, in reversing the Court of Appeals, held the likelihood of misuse by the jury clearly outweighs the value of this evidence. . . .

TALBERT v. EVERS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2021

Congress directs us to consider qualified immunity sua sponte if the issue is apparent from the face of the complaint and permits us to dismiss an action on that basis.68 Qualified immunity protects government officials … to qualified immunity because Mr.

XI v. HAUGEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2021

Where a plaintiff fails to plead a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery[,]” and a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b … In the context of determining whether there is a violation of a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required to impose Bivens liability . . .