Case law

Shultz v. Carlisle Police Department

706 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2010

Mistakes about the governing legal standard can be evidence that the right is not clearly established: “qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably … As such, the qualified immunity defense is unavailable in these circumstances. C.

Boykin v. Bloomsburg University

893 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1995

In order to hold Kreisher liable, the Boykins must override his qualified immunity by showing that, as a government official acting in a discretionary capacity, Kreisher violated a clearly established statutory and constitutional … The determination of whether the actions of Kreisher violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights is a pure question of law. See Medina v.

Konopka v. Borough of Wyoming

383 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2005

Accordingly, the Court finds that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of Defendant Ra-gantesi’s actions. Consequently, Defendant Ragantesi is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Defendant Burda is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Burton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes that (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional … When viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Burton, the qualified immunity question becomes whether it was clearly established that continuing to 70 Sherwood v.

Portnoy v. Pennick

595 F. Supp. 1000 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1984

Additionally, the Supreme Court pointed out that the qualified immunity granted officials who perform discretionary functions can be avoided only if the officials act contrary to clearly established statutory or constitutional … These provisions clearly and unequivocally grant an employee additional rights. Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Sterling v.

Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC. v. Decker

674 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2009

If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, 37 then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Williams v. … As stated above, "if the court concludes that the defendant's conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity.”

Estate of Cooper by and Through Cooper v. Leamer

705 F. Supp. 1081 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1989

Merits of the Civil Rights Claims/Qualified Immunity: Count IV The defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs' civil rights claims on the merits and because of qualified immunity. … The question in determining the existence of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable person could have believed the defendant’s action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.

Walker-Serrano ex rel. Walker v. Leonard

168 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2001

It is a well-established legal principle that government officials may enjoy qualified immunity from suit. … was clearly established.

Behm v. Luzerne County Children & Youth Policy Makers

172 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2001

First, qualified immunity shields officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wilson v. … Second, even when a violation of a constitutional right has been clearly established, an official may be entitled to qualified immunity where “a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in

Long v. Holtry

673 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2009

of qualified immunity. … Even where a government official has violated the constitution, he may be shielded from liability by qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.

Black Hawk v. Pennsylvania

225 F. Supp. 2d 465 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Where the defense of qualified immunity is asserted, the plaintiff shoulders the initial burden of showing that the challenged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Sherwood v.

Jackson v. Dallas School District

954 F. Supp. 2d 304 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 2013

The law provides: The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government officials who are performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Thus, to decide the issue of qualified immunity, we must determine if the facts alleged show a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Brogan v. Tunkhannock Twp.

302 F. Supp. 3d 670 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2018

"Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established … Pa. 2009) ("The court may eschew difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant

Deivert v. Zartman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2025

Courts consider two prongs when determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established.” … Supp. 3d at 623; see also Thomas, 88 F.4th at 281 (holding that for qualified immunity purposes, a right must be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation).

Rogers v. Mount Union Borough Ex Rel. Zook

816 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1993

Officials exercising discretionary powers are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Defendants, then, may not rely on qualified immunity to shield them from plaintiffs title VII claim. 6 IX Defendants argue that the Borough of Mount Union itself is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Barnard v. Lackawanna County

194 F. Supp. 3d 337 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2016

Judgment will be granted if “the movant clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir.2005). … from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Shrey v. Kontz

981 F. Supp. 2d 333 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2013

Qualified Immunity Our Supreme Court in Saucier v. … and second, whether that right was clearly established. 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Kegerise v. Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dist.

325 F. Supp. 3d 564 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2018

As a threshold matter, the Court first addresses the applicability of qualified immunity infra . 1. … Legal Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity provides "that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Higgins v. BOROUGH OF TAYLOR

551 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2008

In any case, qualified immunity for police officers “absolves defendants if reasonable officers could have believed their conduct was lawful ‘in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers … Determining whether qualified immunity applies is a two “step process:” “[fjirst, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights ...

Verney v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

903 F. Supp. 826 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1995

Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for any actions they took with respect to Plaintiffs discharge. 11 The test for qualified immunity was announced by the … We have already determined that Plaintiff did not have a “clearly established constitutional right” in employment with the Commission.