Case law

Klemka v. Nichols

943 F. Supp. 470 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1996

Qualified immunity Even if we had resolved the foregoing issues in plaintiffs favor at this stage, we would, nevertheless, grant defendants’ motion on grounds of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity applies even in instances “where the rights were clearly established, if it was objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Frank v.

Pahler v. City of Wilkes-Barre

207 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2001

Given these conclusions, it is obvious that there was no clearly established constitutional right of which the individual defendants should have been aware and, thus, they are also entitled to the defense of qualified immunity … immunity.

Grove v. City of York, Penn.

342 F. Supp. 2d 291 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2004

not have known that their actions violated clearly established rights. … Both of these claims were clearly established at the time Defendants acted.

Kirby v. Loyalsock Township School District

837 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2011

In the alternative, Defendant DiMarco and Defendant Mextorf assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id.) … Qualified Immunity In addition to arguing that Plaintiff has failed to establish as a matter of law that her constitutional rights were violated, Defendant DiMarco and Defendant Mextorf assert that they are entitled to qualified

Matute v. Carson Long Institute

160 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1958

Without the review in detail of its financial structure and administration, it will suffice to state that the findings of fact of the court below in that case did not establish that the Ogontz School qualified for the tax … The comment of the court in the Hill case indicates clearly why the Ogontz case is easily distinguished from the instant case.

Sullivan v. Houstoun

928 F. Supp. 521 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Sullivan’s First Amendment claim. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim of a violation of a constitutional right if the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation and the contours of the right are sufficiently

Burk v. Runk

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2021

Qualified Immunity Lastly, Defendants assert that, even if their actions “violated a constitutional right,” qualified immunity “shield[s] them from liability.”84 Defendants … (rejecting qualified immunity defense for failure-to-protect claim and citing Carter v.

Augenti v. Cappellini

84 F.R.D. 73 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1979

Police officers do enjoy a qualified immunity for acts done in the performance of their official functions. This immunity extends only to acts taken in good faith and upon a reasonable belief. Pierson v. … As pointed out in Wright and Miller, supra at page 212, et seq. — this “work product rule” is often spoken of as creating a “privilege” when in reality it is more accurate to say that it gives a “qualified immunity from discovery

Lindenmuth

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2026

) whether those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident. … Barkes, 575 U.S. 822, 825 (2015) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the

Cutler v. Bellefonte Area School District

97 F. Supp. 3d 586 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2015

To determine if an individual defendant qualifies as a high public official for purposes of absolute immunity, the court must consider, on a case-by-case basis, “the nature of [the official’s] duties, the importance of his … Unlike the plaintiff in Graham , Plaintiff in the instant case did not allege facts which could establish that Defendant’s actions went beyond his official authority.

Hontz

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2026

Because of the qualified immunity afforded to police officers, the question is whether the defendant violated clearly established law. … Whether the Right Was Clearly Established Qualified immunity shields police from false arrest and malicious prosecution claims unless they violated a right that was clearly established at the time the defendant acted

Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Saccone

894 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2012

Nonetheless, FFRF suggests that, to qualify as a legislative act, there must be some allocation of resources or regulation of behavior. (Doc. 19 at 18). This argument is unpersuasive. … The court is compelled to shine a clear, bright light on this resolution because it pushes the Establishment Clause envelope behind the safety glass of legislative immunity.

Kocher v. Larksville Borough

926 F. Supp. 2d 579 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2013

This prong “of the qualified immunity analysis therefore ‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’ ” Montanez … Kocher claims that Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity by simply stating that a “stigma-plus” claim is clearly established.

Gonzalez

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 2026

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 … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be established by the official seeking immunity.32 To determine whether an official is entitled qualified immunity, a court must determine (1

Scicchitano v. County of Northumberland

112 F. Supp. 3d 293 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2015

The decision to privatize the Weatherization Department is clearly one which generally regulates the affairs of the county. … Plaintiffs initially argued that a preliminary injunction would-serve the public interest because it would ensure the continued and uninterrupted services to the community members qualifying for services.

Clark v. Zimmerman

394 F. Supp. 1166 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 1975

This distinction with respect to immunity was established by the Supreme Court in Bradley v. … Since prosecuting attorneys are afforded the same immunity as judges, the exception to prosecutorial immunity would be acts undertaken which are clearly beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the prosecutor’s office, e.

Padilla v. Miller

143 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1999

Miller contends that any damage award is foreclosed by the doctrine of qualified immunity. C. Is Miller Entitled to Qualified Immunity? … legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken.’ ” Wilson v.

Millbrook v. United States

8 F. Supp. 3d 601 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2014

; (7) a cognizable FTCA claim is not stated; and (8) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants’ untimeliness arguments clearly lack merit.

Zimmerman v. Schaeffer

654 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants sued in their individual capacities assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and seek summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ constitutional law claims. … 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.

Lynn v. Smith

628 F. Supp. 283 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1985

IMMUNITY ISSUE Finally, the defendants raise the defense of a qualified or good faith immunity from damages. The leading case in this area is Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Accordingly, the defendants suggest, the law was not “clearly established.” The plaintiff, however, alleges that the defendants “actually knew” that they were violating Mr.