Case law

Checker Cab Phila. v. Phila. Parking Auth.

306 F. Supp. 3d 748 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2018

"The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." Id. at 1866 . … because the right asserted was not clearly established.

Druckenmiller v. United States

548 F. Supp. 193 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

As noted supra, the scope of the qualified immunity which the individual FBI agents retain is determined by reference to objective criteria; i.e., whether they violated “clearly established” law. … The Harlow court redefined the contours of the qualified immunity defense; we accordingly requested counsel to re-brief the qualified immunity issue. 2 .

Martin-Mcfarlane v. City of Phila.

299 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2017

immunity falls to the official claiming it as a defense." 36 Establishing qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … to be resolved before determining whether [a] defendant's conduct violated a clearly established right." 44 A decision as to qualified immunity now, therefore, is premature. 45 2.

Bieros v. Nicola

839 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1993

or administrative duties, then they are only entitled to a qualified, good-faith immunity. … A qualified immunity only protects defendants if it can be shown .that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Hixon v. Durbin

560 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1983

Unfortunately, in announcing the new test for qualified immunity in Harlow , the Supreme Court expressly declined to define what criteria a rule of law would have to meet in order to be deemed “clearly established.” … Presumably, every principle of law which is essential to the conclusion that the defendant violated plaintiff’s rights must be “clearly established” for the qualified immunity defense to fail.

C.M. v. Southeast Delco School District

828 F. Supp. 1179 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1993

In order to obtain qualified immunity, each defendant must show that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Finally, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, because the kind of abuse alleged by plaintiff is a violation of *1192 clearly established constitutional rights, and because plaintiff makes sufficient allegations

Kantamanto v. King

651 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2009

Thus, the Court must turn to the remaining prong of qualified immunity analysis: “whether ... defendant [North] is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that his conduct did ‘not violate clearly established statutory … The fact that the right is clearly established, however, does not end the qualified immunity analysis in the First Amendment retaliation context.

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2022

Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ … Therefore, the qualified immunity analysis involves determining whether the defendant violated a right that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at 778.

CROSLAND v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2023

That leaves the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the officers’ conduct violated clearly established law. … its caselaw suggests that municipal liability should remain untethered to the “clearly established” qualified immunity standard.

BUSH v. RENEGAR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity has long “protect[ed] government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District

425 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2006

Therefore, each defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity unless she violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff Christopher Klump. In other words, there is a two-part test. … Further, even if the defendants did violate Christopher Klump’s constitutional rights, they would have qualified immunity if the constitutional right were not clearly established.

Brown v. Harris 6034

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2023

Qualified immunity protects officers when the law underlying the alleged violations is not clearly established. … Accordingly, the relevant right was not clearly established and Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity.

Moorehead v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2024

Coffey, 905 F.3d 138, 144 (3d Cir. 2018) (granting qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law regarding electronic communications in the workplace); United States v. … But if they weren’t, these unsettled issues would weigh heavily in favor of qualified immunity.

Sciotto Ex Rel. Sciotto v. Marple Newtown School District

81 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendants James Smith and Stu Nathans claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ suit. The defendants have met their burden of pleading a qualified immunity defense, Gomez v. … a right for qualified immunity purposes.

Villot v. Varner

465 F. Supp. 2d 439 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2006

The “clearly established Federal law” which governs ineffective- assistance of counsel claims is the two-pronged standard set forth in Strickland v. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 363 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (stating that the “Strickland test qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court’ ”).

ARREY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2025

“An official sued under § 1983 for an alleged constitutional violation is entitled to qualified immunity unless [the official] (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when he acted.” … So, Zebley is entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest the Arrey “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers

Pitts v. United States

228 F. Supp. 3d 412 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2017

Jones, 225 F.3d 468, 470 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Rule 41(e) does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity.”); Pena v. … established Fourth Amendment rights”); Crawford v.

DOWNS v. BOROUGH OF JENKINTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2020

“The test for qualified immunity is objective.” Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 142 n.15 (3d Cir. 2001). … Litig., 49 F.3d 945, 961 (3d Cir. 1995) (“[I]f the law was established clearly, the official still may obtain qualified immunity if he claims ‘extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have

TALLEY v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2024

be entitled to qualified immunity because the Amended Complaint has failed to clearly identify how the clerk violated Plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights. See Mirabella v. … right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”); Williams v.

NEWBERG v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2025

Qualified Immunity Does Not Preclude Liability Because Plaintiff’s Rights Were Well-Established: The application of qualified immunity is inapplicable because … Qualified immunity does not preclude liability if the “official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. at 232.