Case law

Martin v. Blake

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2022

We begin by addressing qualified immunity. … Thus, 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

Picariello v. Fenton

491 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 1980

The Government argues that a recovery against the United States is appropriate only if the individuals who committed the tortious acts could be found liable for monetary damages because of their failure to establish the qualified … Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 561-62 , 98 S.Ct. 855, 859 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978) which extended the qualified immunity to prison officials. The Government points to Norton v.

Hafez

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2026

were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken[.]” … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Dimoff v. Chambersburg Pennsylvania State Police

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2024

As set forth more fully supra, a qualified immunity analysis considers (1) “whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged”, and (2) “whether the right was clearly established.” … “In light of a clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity when the reasonableness of the force used is factually disputed.” Guthrie v. Guthrie, 216 F. Supp. 3d 590, 596 (W.D.

Kelly v. Bell

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2024

The doctrine of 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 … Under the law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery unless the plaintiff's allegation state a claim for violation of clearly established law.

Timko v. Traugh

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2023

Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … Defendants have failed to meaningfully develop their qualified immunity argument with respect to whether Officer Traugh’s conduct violated clearly established law.

Hunkin-Conkey Const. Co. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

34 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1940

This general- provision constitutes a waiver by the State, if the State is the reál party in interest, of its immunity from suit. Utah Construction Co. v. … Certain of these questions are clearly proper ones for declaratory decree.

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

White

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2025

When assessing qualified immunity, [the] inquiry is two-fold: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a right had been violated, and (2) whether that right was clearly established when it was allegedly … Existing caselaw clearly establishes and recognizes that right”). See also United States v.

Hall v. Phelps

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … For qualified-immunity purposes, “clearly established rights are derived either from binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent or from a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts

Tucker

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2026

solitary confinement—without penological justification—was clearly established at the relevant time.” … The court finally noted that its holding clearly followed from its holding in Clark and “merely clarifie[d] that the clearly established right in Clark extends to individuals on death row.”

Korth v. Hoover

190 F. Supp. 3d 394 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2016

Policy .is established when it is shown that “a decision maker possessing final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action” has “issue[d] an official proclamation, policy, or edict.” Watson v. … We disagree with Plaintiff that he has clearly specified the policies and customs that caused him harm.

Carr

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

Boran’s qualified immunity argument fails for the same reason. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

In-Cho Chung v. Park

377 F. Supp. 524 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1974

The Commonwealth made a motion for summary judgment on the immunity ground at the time of trial. It will be denied. … (h) The production burden would rest on the complainant to establish a prima facie case of arbitrariness, caprice, or discrimination.

Carr

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

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … 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.” Pearson v.

Yentzer v. Potter County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2022

Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … Defendants’ qualified-immunity argument rises and falls on their assertion that the rights at issue were not clearly established.

Stevens v. Sullum

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2021

“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Id. … Borough of Eddystone, 824 F.Supp.2d at 622 (“A state official with qualified immunity has no civil liability for discretionary conduct so long as he does ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Bristow v. Clevenger

80 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2000

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discre *432 tionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … For example, an arrest made without probable cause, clearly violates established rights. See Deary v. Three Un-Named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185, 192 (3d Cir.1984).

Mateo v. Waltz

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2023

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 reasonable person … 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

Remlinger v. Lebanon County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2020

whether qualified immunity applies. … recovery was not clearly established at the time of this case.