Case law

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.

Mays v. Scranton City Police Department

503 F. Supp. 1255 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1980

In sum, Gallucci clearly acted “under color of state law,” see Adickes v. … It should also be noted that the Scranton City Police Department is not entitled to the qualified immunity based on the good faith of its officials. See Owen v.

American Hospital Supply Corp. v. York County Institution Dist.

123 F. Supp. 187 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 1954

Plaintiff alleges that it is an Illinois corporation duly qualified to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; that “Defendant, York County Institution District, is a municipal corporation organized and existing … A stipulation subsequently filed establishes the amount thereof as $161.25 and with no objection to the allowance thereof by plaintiff, the credit should be allowed.

In Re TMI Coordinated Proceedings

735 F. Supp. 640 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1990

It is “firmly established] that Congress may not expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution.” Verlinden B.V. v. … Clearly, the decision to remand the cases at bar is based on § 1447(c).

Sgagias

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 2026

Ditty argues he is immune from liability for these claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity, since it was not clearly established that he would be violating the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by relying … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Johnson v. Fieni

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 2025

Qualified immunity shields state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes that (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … Fieni asserts that Johnson’s claim is barred by qualified immunity because he cannot demonstrate that the constitutional right which he contends was violated was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Garzella v. Borough of Dunmore

237 F.R.D. 371 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2006

This precedent was established in Cahn , and cited as recently as 1994 in Boraks v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 205 Mich.App. 149 , 517 N.W.2d 771, 772 (1994). … for immunity.

Hooker v. Arnold

454 F. Supp. 527 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1978

Since defendant is not protected by absolute immunity, cf. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418-19 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), he must rely upon the qualified defense of good-faith. … Since the affidavits do not establish the absence of a factual question on the issue of good faith, defendant cannot be granted summary judgment.

Starr v. Price

385 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2005

Qualified immunity shields "government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … As we find no constitutional violation, we need not address the issue of qualified immunity. 3 .

United States v. Cortese

568 F. Supp. 119 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1983

Obviously, confidential informants were able to gather some information as Sackreiter’s December 21 affidavit clearly states. … There is no doubt under the facts outlined that the government was permitted to refer to the immunized testimony to secure the perjury indictment, and such use is clearly excepted from the prohibitions in the statute.

Riley v. Clark

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2022

immunity at this stage.5 Specifically, Swanson asserts that the correct question for any qualified immunity analysis here is whether it was “clearly established that a correctional officer witnessing otherwise legal … to qualified immunity.”13 Although Swanson asserts that the correct question for qualified immunity here is whether it was “clearly established that a

Bryson v. Kremar

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

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for civil damages brought pursuant to section 1983 “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Kremar violated Bryson’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Atlantic Health Care Benefits Trust v. Foster

809 F. Supp. 365 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1992

Nor may a state body be sued without a waiver of immunity. This bar to suit just as clearly applies to Commonwealth agencies as it does to the Commonwealth itself. See Helfrich v. … As one court has explained, “To allow an entrepreneurial venture to qualify as ah ‘employer’ by establishing and maintaining a multiple employer welfare arrangement without input by the employers who subscribe to the plan

Etson Manufacturing Co. v. Murphy

462 F. Supp. 807 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1978

Defendants Murphy and Wozniak are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for their actions concerning the entry of April 1, 1974. … , point to the conclusion that qualified immunity should apply and that the Defendants should not be held liable in damages for their reasonable actions.

Vieth v. Pennsylvania

188 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2002

Pennsylvania has clearly reserved its power to invoke sovereign immunity. 42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 8521(b) (2001). … Clearly, the court has the remedial power to issue such a declaratory judgment. III.

Vartan v. Harristown Development Corp.

661 F. Supp. 596 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1987

This danger is minimal, however, because of the requirement that the municipality act pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy. … must exist before the private entity can claim antitrust immunity.

Smith v. Kasakowski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2024

A right is clearly established for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis if established Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent “would have put government officials on fair notice that their conduct violated the … Nonprecedential decisions “cannot establish a right” for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. El v.

Rittenhouse Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2021

actor is not by itself sufficient to establish that that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Controlling case law from the Third Circuit clearly states that unpublished cases cannot establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity. See El, 975 F.3d at 340–41.

Montemuro

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2026

| Additionally, the Third Circuit recognized this right as clearly established. … | As to the second prong of the qualified immunity test, violation of a clearly established right, the appellate court also had to reach important legal | conclusions.

Adams v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

502 F. Supp. 1282 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1980

His claim for damages clearly must be dismissed against the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and its justices, because judicial immunity is an absolute barrier to such an award. Stump v. … Indeed, the former District Justice clearly communicated an intention to limit his defense to a federal forum.