Case law

CHAPOLINI v. CAPODANNO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 2021

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “shields government officials from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional law.” Rodriguez v. Panarello, 119 F. Supp. 3d 331, 341 (E.D. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if “either . . . the official did not violate a constitutional right or . . . the right in question was not ‘clearly established.’” Id. (citing Pearson v.

Hagen v. Benjamin Foster Co.

739 F. Supp. 2d 770 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2010

We are not inclined to abandon a longstanding reading of the officer removal statute that clearly preserves its constitutionality and adopt one which raises serious constitutional doubt.”). … One of the primary purposes of the removal statute — as its history clearly demonstrates — was to have such defenses litigated in the federal courts. 395 U.S. at 406-07 , 89 S.Ct. 1813 .

CHAPOLINI v. CAPODANNO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2019

Qualified Immunity The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. Defs.’ Mem. at 10. … The defendants have qualified immunity for the claims against them in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person

POPLAWSKI v. GREEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2023

Sergeant Green makes a second argument that she is subject to qualified immunity. In Saucier v. … The Court set forth a two-pronged test for a determination of qualified immunity: (a) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (b) whether that right was “clearly

Anderson v. United States

217 F. Supp. 814 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1963

We think these allegations establish jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 , and constitute sufficient compliance with Rule 8(a) (1). … generally accepted rule may be seen from the brief discussion of the point (citing cases) in Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.), Vol. 3, pp. 2738-2739: “Aside from the problem of joinder presented by the doctrine of sovereign immunity

Rice v. City of Philadelphia

66 F.R.D. 17 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 1974

The situation is further complicated by the fact that many of the defendants are presumably immune from damage claims. … It seems highly probable that all of the putative class members are immune from damage claims in this action.

Epps v. Lomas Mortgage USA, Inc. (In Re Epps)

110 B.R. 691 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1990

HUD then applies six criteria to decide whether the mortgagor qualifies for an assignment. Each of the criteria must be satisfied for HUD to take an assignment. … During that forbearance period, the borrower is required to pay HUD only an established percentage of net income.

Eastern Motor Express, Inc. v. Espenshade

138 F. Supp. 426 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1956

In addition, the Pennsylvania State Highway Commission, an agency of the State, existed at the time of the creation of the defendant Commission, and was qualified to carry out the duties of the defendant Commission. … Coronado Coal Co., supra, 259 U.S. 344 , 42 S.Ct. 570 , 66 L.Ed. 975 , 27 A.L.R. 762 , he must do so either at its principal place of business, or at any of the regular and established places of its business where it may

Cheryl Johnson, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al.

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

’ acts] contravened clearly established law in a particularized context.” … Even if Plaintiffs could succeed in overcoming qualified immunity by demonstrating deliberate indifference that went beyond negligence, the economic value of the case is limited by “the decedent’s lack of a provable employment

Acosta v. Democratic City Comm.

288 F. Supp. 3d 597 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2018

immunity." … An election district is "a district, division or precinct, established in accordance with the provisions of [the Election Code], within which all qualified electors vote at one polling place. § 2602(g).

Coughlin v. Westinghouse Broadcasting & Cable, Inc.

603 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1985

Defendant’s broadcast is clearly capable of a defamatory meaning. … Moreover, a jury could clearly find that the I-Team was at least aware that the broadcast could be interpreted as implicitly accusing Coughlin of corrupt activities.

LEARY v. COOK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2020

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … We consider first whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Pinckney v. County of Northampton

433 F. Supp. 373 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1976

She claims that defendants promoted two white persons even though neither, in terms of past performance or ability, was more qualified than plaintiff for the promotion. … discriminatory practice, January 1, 1973. 1 We may dispose of this argument quickly for it proceeds on an erroneous premise, i. e., that Title VII is governed by the most analogous state statute of limitation because it establishes

BISTRIAN v. WARDEN TROY LEVI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2023

Whether Defendant Gibbs Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendant Gibbs also invokes the doctrine of qualified immunity, which insulates government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their … Clearly Established Constitutional Right The second prong has already been addressed above.110 A right is “clearly established” when its “contours . . .

Furey v. Temple University

884 F. Supp. 2d 223 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2012

Qualified immunity provides a defense for government officials “performing discretionary functions” so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Even when the right is clearly established, the government officer is entitled to qualified immunity if he reached a reasonable, but mistaken conclusion, that the law’s requirements were met. Orsatti v.

GILLESPIE v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2021

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 person … determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity: “(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

Bridgeport Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board

199 F. Supp. 410 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1961

We think authority to permit establishment of a branch is clearly committed to agency discretion. It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the place of banking in our increasingly complex and interdependent society. … We merely *415 call attention to the fact that, since authority to permit establishment of a branch is clearly committed to agency discretion, the matter is disposed of automatically by Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure

MacKay v. United States Postal Service

607 F. Supp. 271 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1985

The court cannot say on the present record whether or not Mackay might establish discrimination based on handicap. … But the Government is immune from suit without its consent.

DOWNS v. BOROUGH OF JENKINTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2020

Defendants argue that (1) Locke is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate plaintiffs’ clearly established rights, and (2) Locke is presumptively entitled to qualified immunity because he relied … Downs’ First Amendment right to seek political office were clearly established at the time of Locke’s actions. Accordingly, Locke is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Clean Air Council v. Mallory

226 F. Supp. 2d 705 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2002

The Court first turns to defendants’ sovereign immunity argument. A. … Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under the Clean Air Act.