Case law

City of Philadelphia v. Public Employees Benefit Services Corp.

842 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1994

The court may enter judgment on the pleadings only if the moving party clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … However, I need not construe the scope of the statutory immunity, because even if I assume that the statute provides complete immunity for investment losses incurred in the Plan, I still find that the City may have suffered

MILLER v. GOGGIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2023

Defendant Orner claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. (Id. at 14.) … Indeed, “‘qualified immunity’ is not a talismanic phrase that relieves Defendants of their burden to show that their actions did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.”

Checker Cab Phila. v. Phila. Parking Auth.

306 F. Supp. 3d 710 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2018

grounds of qualified immunity. … was not "clearly established."

In re Remicade Antitrust Litig.

345 F. Supp. 3d 566 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2018

To establish that a lawsuit qualifies as a "sham," and will not be immune from suit under Noerr-Pennington , a two-part test is applied. … To establish that Noerr immunity should not apply, the plaintiff must then prove "the challenged lawsuit is 'causally linked' to an antitrust injury."

White v. United States Government Department of Treasury-Internal Revenue Service

969 F. Supp. 321 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1997

The United States retains its immunity from suit unless it has unequivocally expressed a waiver of its immunity. See, e.g., United States v. … As discussed infra, White cannot establish that he can prevail on the merits.

Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Charter Abstract Corp.

790 F. Supp. 82 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1992

The general rule is as follows: Statutes granting powers, privileges or immunities to ‘corporations,’ without any qualifying word, will be construed as applicable only to domestic corporations in the absence of plain indications … By using the qualifying term “resident,” the Pennsylvania Legislature conspicuously refrained from limiting covered claims to domestic corporations.

Mathis v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.

455 F. Supp. 406 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1978

Section 611 establishes a qualified privilege only, rather than an absolute privilege. … This privilege may still be lost through abuse, but abuse of a different kind is required: “[T]his qualified immunity is forfeited if the publisher steps out of the scope of the privilege or abuses the ‘occasion.’

Scoles v. Mercy Health Corp.

887 F. Supp. 765 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1994

Seoles is an orthopedic surgeon infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”), the virus that causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“AIDS”). Dr. … Scoles is clearly not a “significant risk”. Plaintiff emphasizes that the only alleged case of HIV transmission from a health care worker to a patient is a matter of controversy.

Schoenborn v. Boeing Co.

586 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 1984

The Brown case has not clearly delineated the elements of the government contractor defense. … McKay listed the following as elements of the government contractor defense: (1) the United States is immune from liability under Feres and Stencel, (2) the supplier proves that the United States established, or approved,

Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

215 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1963

By way of contrast, when Congress has created private rights and private causes of action it has done so clearly, in express language, defining-the measures of recovery, as in the Civil Rights Act 7 and other legislation. … As early as 1941 [Executive Order 8802, 6 F.R. 3109 (1941)] there was established in the Office of Production Management a Committee on Fair Employment Practice whose duties included receiving and investigating complaints

ADAMI v. COUNTY OF BUCKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2022

immunity depends on the second prong—whether the right at issue was clearly established. … In the present Motion, the Moving Defendants argue the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established. This is incorrect.

Howell v. Millersville Univ. of Pa.

283 F. Supp. 3d 309 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2017

The parties dispute whether Howell can establish the second element, that he was qualified for the position in question. … Because Howell's First Amendment claim fails on the merits, the Court does not address the issue of Defendants' qualified immunity.

United States ex rel. Budike v. Peco Energy

897 F. Supp. 2d 300 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2012

because statutory language does not clearly obligate the State of Iowa to pay the University’s debts”). … See Cooper, 548 F.3d at 307 (noting that the fact that SEPTA is immune from state taxation is an attribute that supports immunity). 43 The factors for determining PRPA’s status under state law do not point clearly in one

Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Housing & Urban Development of the United States

343 F. Supp. 1176 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1972

I THE INTRA-AGENCY MEMORANDA EXEMPTION The history of the Freedom of Information Act establishes that its primary purpose was to increase the access of the public to information contained in government records. … This would be clearly policy-oriented, and we repeat that the mere suggestion of a price would not. 11 . Note 70, 405 F.2d at 1339 . 12 . The government’s secondary sources are also unpersuasive. Miller v.

Johnson v. Resources for Human Development, Inc.

860 F. Supp. 218 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 1994

Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 787 F.Supp. 471, 480 (E.D.Pa.1992) (granting motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity). … Private figure plaintiffs involved in matters not of public concern can establish that the publisher abused any conditional privilege by showing that the publisher acted negligently.

SCARBOROUGH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2026

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.” … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987) (explaining clearly established law must be particularized so plaintiffs cannot avoid qualified immunity by “simply alleging violation of extremely abstract rights”).

Sabo v. Casey

757 F. Supp. 587 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1991

Clearly, judges are the “highest level of [the judicial] department.” … States should be permitted to achieve their desired objectives with persons whom the state has determined to be most able or qualified.

Gonzalez

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity Third, the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

GRABER v. BORESKY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2019

was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’”63 The Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately alleged a Fourth Amendment violation and that the issue of qualified immunity cannot be resolved at … Aug. 29, 2019), in general the “objectively reasonable” formulation of the qualified immunity standard has given way to the “clearly established law” formulation, compare, e.g., Wood v.

CLARK v. MERRELL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2025

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine is intended to “give[ ] government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal … If none exists, then “it may be possible that a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ in the Courts of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.” L.R. v. Sch.