Case law

Nelson v. Thornburgh

567 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1983

qualified “without regard” to handicap. … Section 115(a) of the 1978 Amendments calls for grants to states to establish and operate comprehensive rehabilitation centers.

Multi-Family Council of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Municipal Court of Philadelphia

541 F. Supp. 139 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1982

This sweeping statutory revision clearly contemplated a greater degree of flexibility for courts in scheduling cases. … The Lindsey Court certainly did not intend to announce that, to comply with due process, every state must adopt the timetable established by Oregon.

Toppi v. United States

332 F. Supp. 513 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1971

After finding the facts in this case, it is clearly apparent that a cause of action is not viable under that section. … The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter and the government is not immune from this suit. 2.

ALVARADO v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless (1) their conduct violates a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson v. … established” for purposes of qualified immunity (quoting Treats v.

Tyson v. Access Services

158 F. Supp. 3d 309 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2016

District courts in this Circuit have provided: [I]n order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination by association and survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) he was qualified at the time of … The Third Circuit has established that “protesting what an employee believes in good faith to be a discriminatory practice is clearly protected conduct.” Aman v.

United States v. Graves

951 F. Supp. 2d 758 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2013

The Supreme Court discussed the good faith exception and facially deficient warrants in Groh in the context of a qualified immunity claim. 540 U.S. at 563-65 , 124 S.Ct. 1284 . … of a suppression hearing in Leon defines the qualified immunity accorded an officer.”

NIGEL DEDIEECE CARTER v. OFFICER ROBERT J. EDWARDS, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2026

Officer Edwards Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity. There is an independent reason Carter cannot recover damages from Edwards on his charge-specific theory. … Qualified immunity protects an officer unless the constitutional right at issue was clearly established when the officer acted. Pearson v.

Holley v. Schreibeck

758 F. Supp. 283 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1991

Thus this activity qualifies neither as a form of “intimate association” nor as a form of “expressive association” as those terms were described in Roberts . … We express no opinion on whether or not such a suit in the state court would be barred by a privilege or governmental immunity. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8541.

Castle v. Clymer

15 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1998

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as they have “acted upon advice of counsel and with a reasonable good faith belief in the lawfulness of their actions.” Answer at 8. … Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. IV. RELIEF A.

Bianchi v. City of Philadelphia

183 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2002

Bibby, 260 F.3d at 262 , Bianchi’s allegations clearly do not fit this scenario. … Pennsylvania law creates a generalized governmental immunity for all injuries to people and property and enumerates eight limited exceptions to this immunity. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541.

MOORE v. CITY OF PHILADLEPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2021

Qualified Immunity The officers assert that even if there is a triable issue as to whether they lacked probable cause in searching Mr. Moore, they avoid liability due to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages provided that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Puricelli v. Borough of Morrisville

820 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1993

Additionally, the defendants maintain that they are immune from suit under the doctrines of absolute or qualified immunity and that any state law claims made by Puricelli are barred by the statute of limitations. … Puricelli does dispute that the various defendants are entitled to absolute and qualified immunity defenses. As stated in the companion case of Garner v.

Smith v. American Red Cross

876 F. Supp. 64 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1994

Therefore, this court finds that plaintiffs negligence, resultant wrongful death, and survival claims clearly are time barred. … “In sum, HIV attacks the immune system and most persons, approximately 95 percent, eventually get AIDS and die.”

Soufflas v. Zimmer, Inc.

474 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2007

Hetzel is qualified to render his opinion as to the effect of the sterilization on the material. 3 That Dr. … Hetzel is not qualified to opine about the alleged inadequacies of Zimmer’s warnings.

Palace v. Deaver

838 F. Supp. 1016 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1993

more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully, qualified … Such discriminatory purpose is not presumed; intentional discrimination must be clearly shown, deBotton v. Marple Township, 689 F.Supp. 477, 482 (E.D.Pa.1988).

NUXOLL v. CONNORS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2022

At summary judgment, the officer bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to qualified immunity. Jefferson v. … But the focus of the qualified immunity analysis here is not on how many people Connors interviewed in his investigation, it is whether it is clearly established that there is a “a right to be free from arrest except on

Gibbs v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2025

The Court dismisses the Fourteenth Amendment claim on qualified-immunity grounds because there is no clearly established right against malicious prosecution under the Fourteenth Amendment, and no such right was clearly … Qualified immunity bars this claim.

Alliston v. Little Neighborhood Schools, Inc.

6 F. Supp. 2d 396 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 1998

a waiver of its immunity. … The writ is stricken, so LNS may have access to the funds that are clearly intended for its use. An appropriate Order follows.

Desper v. Montgomery County

727 F. Supp. 959 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1990

Rehabilitation Act In order to establish a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., plaintiff must establish that (1) he is a handicapped individual within the meaning of the Act; (2) he is otherwise qualified … Plaintiff must next establish that he was otherwise qualified to return to work as an undercover narcotics officer.

Vennell v. United States

36 F. Supp. 646 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1941

She qualified as executrix and the will appointing her was admitted to probate on July 24, 1931. At the time of his death, Paul B. … Vennell since has duly qualified. 4. On Tuesday, June 29, 1937, the plaintiff, Leroy L. Vennell, administrator d.b.n.c.t.a. of the Estate of Paul B.