Case law

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.

Wilson Andresen v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 2022

A qualified immunity analysis involves two questions: whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Furthermore, when undertaking this qualified immunity analysis: At the “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis, the question is “whether

Bentler

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 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 … A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” , 533

Robertson v. Anglemeyer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2022

Buskirk, 775 F.App’x 737, 741 (3d Cir. 2019) (citation Amendment claim, the focus will be on the qualified immunity analysis and whether the defendants violated a clearly established right. 4The report, … Generally, the Third Circuit has “found that claims alleging over-detention [or, similarly, over-supervision] under state law are best resolved under the ‘clearly established’ [qualified immunity analysis]

Hazzouri v. West Pittston Borough

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.’”

Burden v. Wilkes-Barre Area School District

16 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1998

Defendant also argues that because the Board’s decision not to hire a certified trainer was a discretionary one, and because the complaint fails to identify a violation of a clearly established right, that the defendant is … entitled to qualified immunity on Counts I and II.

Brownley v. Gettysburg College

338 F. Supp. 725 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1972

The only financial aid Gettysburg receives from the State is in the form of state scholarships granted to qualified students by the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA). … Therefore, I conclude that the evidence taken as a whole does not establish that Gettysburg acts under color of state law for purposes of the Civil Rights Act.

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena

626 F. Supp. 1319 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1986

Finally, we find a useful analogy in a line of cases in which state revenue officials have been accorded a qualified common-law privilege from disclosure of information sought by a federal grand jury investigating non-tax … Therefore, testimonial rather than use immunity applies.

Swanger v. Warrior Run School District

137 F. Supp. 3d 737 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2015

The Manifestation Determination report clearly reinforces the presence of a factual issue regarding . … To establish a violation of Section 504, a plaintiff must show that “(1) [s]he is ‘disabled’ as defined by the Act; (2) [s]he is ‘otherwise qualified’ to participate in school activities; (3) the school or the board of education

Schiazza v. Zoning Hearing Board Fairview Township

168 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2001

The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity in a § 1983 action bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity. Antoine v. … This type of immunity is frequently referred to as “quasi-judicial immunity.”

Rosero

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2026

Qualified immunity shields government officials, including law enforcement, from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established right. Evans v. … When assessing qualified immunity, the Court inquires: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a right had been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established when it was allegedly violated

United States v. American Color & Chemical Corp.

858 F. Supp. 445 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1994

They do not, therefore, qualify as claims of recoupment and will be dismissed on that basis. Id. at 992-93 . … To the extent that AC & C’s remaining claim is grounded on alleged section 107 liability for actions taken by the EPA during the cleanup operation, it is clearly barred by sovereign immunity for the reasons stated above.

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

861 F. Supp. 2d 470 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2012

The City of Wilkes-Barre and Luzerne County both qualify as local agencies under the PPSTCA. See id. § 8501. Therefore, they have immunity under the statute. … “[U]n-like various government officials, municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit — either absolute or qualified — under § 1983." Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty.

Perez v. Colombo

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2022

So, the court may forego 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 … Here, we turn to whether the law was clearly established. This “qualified immunity analysis looks through the rearview window, not the windshield.” Williams v.

Rusack v. Harsha

470 F. Supp. 285 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1978

Although this is sometimes a difficult question, I believe that plaintiff clearly qualifies as such. 24 In Rosenblatt v. … In any event, I am not willing in the face of a legitimate and somewhat extensive legislative inquiry to strip away the legislative immunity unless the fact situation clearly warrants it.

City of Wilkes-Barre v. Sheils

382 B.R. 871 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2008

The bankruptcy court’s findings of fact will only be set aside if clearly erroneous. Bank. … are immune from subrogation under state law.

Castro v. Debias

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established One task does remain in resolving the defendant's assertion of qualified immunity, that is, “the court must decide whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at

Benner v. Wolf

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2021

prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first,” this Court will resolve this issue on the clearly-established prong.58 “A Government official … established federal constitutional or statutory rights,” granting the officials qualified immunity.68 Because Hickox held that the officials did not violate clearly established law, it does not show that Defendants

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Goodman

745 F. Supp. 1048 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1990

City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34, 38 , 105 S.Ct. 1713, 1716 , 85 L.Ed.2d 24 (1985) (interpreting the so-called Parker immunity established in Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943)). … Defendants fail to pursue their argument that the Code clearly expresses an anti-competitive policy authorizing price-fixing of beer.