Case law

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.

Morrison v. Stepanski

839 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1993

and Stepanski assert that ■they are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages under Harlow v. … As the proponent of qualified immunity, defendants bear the burden of establishing that it applies to them. Stoneking, supra, 882 F.2d at 726 .

Clark v. Conahan

737 F. Supp. 2d 239 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2010

Qualified Immunity Brulo argues that the remaining activity is protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for conduct that does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would be aware. Pearson v.

Young v. Sunbury Police Department

160 F. Supp. 3d 802 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2016

Count III Defendants also seek dismissal of the Section 1983 claims against Officers Heck-man and Blaise on the theory that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not clearly unlawful. … established.” 59 A right is clearly established if “a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” 60 “[E]xisting precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond

Dallam v. Cumberland Valley School District

391 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1975

the issue at hand in no way qualifies as an “immunity” within the meaning of § 1983. … Insofar as Goss turns on the magnitude of the injury it clearly is distinguishable from the case at bar.

Meketa v. Kamoie

955 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2013

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials acting and sued in their individual capacities, see Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471-73 , 105 S.Ct. 873 , 83 L.Ed.2d 878 (1985). … A state or municipal actor “sued in his individual capacity enjoys qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Bratton v. Toboz

764 F. Supp. 965 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1991

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.... … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. (Citations omitted). Harlow v.

CICCHIELLO v. Beard

726 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims because they are shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Therefore, the court must examine: (1) whether the officials violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Id.

Broadwater v. Fow

945 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2013

Qualified Immunity Fow, Swink, Hockenberry, and Rush also assert their entitlement to qualified immunity. Application of qualified immunity requires two distinct questions. … The court may eschew difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent *586 that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant acted

Little v. Lycoming County

912 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1996

Based on these considerations, the Fourth Circuit concluded in Torcasio , in ruling on defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity from claims they had violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, that it was not “clearly … State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability even if their conduct violated federal constitutional or statutory standards if the rights in question were not “clearly established” as of the time of the

Brominski v. County of Luzerne

289 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2003

Absolute legislative immunity and qualified immunity are separate and distinct defenses to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … More specifically, qualified immunity focuses on whether officials’ actions were in violation of clearly established law, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Assaf v. Fields

999 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1998

Qualified Immunity. … Even where they violate clearly established rights, officials will nonetheless be immune from suit if they acted in a manner which they reasonably believe to be lawful. Orsatti v.

Betz v. Satteson

259 F. Supp. 3d 132 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2017

Satteson is also shielded by qualified immunity, because it would not be “beyond debate” to every reasonable teacher in her shoes that her response under the circumstances constituted “clearly established” excessive force … fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.” 282 However, “qualified immunity is inapplicable to a state law cause of action;” 283 Thus, as should be noted for our purposes here, “[a] qualified immunity

Lear v. Zanick

850 F. Supp. 2d 481 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2012

was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Defendants Lewis, Mercer, and Haubrick are entitled to qualified immunity. G.

Thomas v. Barker

371 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2005

Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (recognizing qualified immunity as a general rule). … Consequently, since Plaintiffs claim clearly relates to the prosecuto-rial decision to file charges against him, Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from monetary damages.

Wagner v. Holtzapple

101 F. Supp. 3d 462 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2015

Qualified immunity/good faith defense 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).

Kilvitis v. County of Luzerne

52 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1999

Mitchell, 986 F.Supp. 339, 342 (W.D.Va.1997) (“The FMLA clearly expresses an intent to abrogate sovereign immunity.”); Knussman v. … Discovery may reveal that Tupper does not qualify as Kilvitis’ employer under the FMLA. Moreover, the defense of qualified immunity may be applicable here.

Costenbader-Jacobson v. Pennsylvania

227 F. Supp. 2d 304 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2002

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory and constitutional rights, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known

Vicky M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19

486 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity Additionally, the Supervisor Defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity. … With regard to the federal claims, public officials generally enjoy qualified immunity for their actions unless those actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.

Farmer v. Decker

353 F. Supp. 3d 342 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018

The doctrine of sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth and its employees is established by 1 Pa. C.S. § 2310. … In light of the Court's determination as to probable cause, the Court need not address Defendant's argument that he is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.