Case law

In Re TMI Litigation Cases Consolidated II

922 F. Supp. 997 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1996

The problem is clearly recognized by one of the defense’s experts, K. … Molholt “may be qualified to perform risk assessments in fields other than radiation, he does not appear to be qualified to address the specific toxin involved in these cases.” (Defs.’ Findings at 62.)

Herman v. County of York

482 F. Supp. 2d 554 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2007

immunity. … In response, Plaintiff argues that the MHPA does not grant Defendants immunity from the instant suit because their provision of care to Herman does not bring them within the scope of the MHPA.

Steinhauer v. East Pennsboro Area School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects officials, including police officers, from suits for money damages, when “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Thus, Detective Shope is entitled to qualified immunity and will be dismissed.3 While Detective Shope enjoys qualified immunity from suit, East

Estate of Edward L. Himmelwright v. Trooper Benjamin J. Campana

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

involuntarily committed to a mental institution—violated a clearly established constitutional right. … City of Albuquerque, 813 F.3d 912, 929 n.9 (10th Cir. 2015) (noting the disagreement between Tobey and Bland and concluding that “[a] circuit split will not satisfy the clearly established prong of qualified immunity”

Ortiz v. Messinger

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … in order to determine whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right (citation omitted)); Thomas, 463 F.3d at 291 (stating that “qualified immunity will be upheld on

Abney v. Younker

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2020

Second, the court must determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. (citing Reichle, 566 U.S. at 664). … Given that conclusion, the court declines to decide whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Tearpock-Martini v. Borough

196 F. Supp. 3d 457 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2016

Defendants then filed another motion to dismiss asserting that qualified immunity shielded the individual defendants from liability. We agreed and dismissed the individual defendants. (Doc. 42, Memo, of Mar. 20, 2015). … First, defendant argues that the sign is not a “religious display”, and therefore, it is does not qualify for Establishment Clause analysis.

Manson v. Vogt

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2024

dispute of material fact may preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity. … 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.” Saucier v.

Aguilar v. Moyer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … 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.

PIZARRO v. WETZEL

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … 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.

Nationwide Insurance v. Chiao

374 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2005

The Policy and Clearly Established Public Policy Because the UIM Policy does not expressly address the issue before us, we must now turn to an examination of the public policy underlying the interplay of the WCA and the MVFRL … These general precepts are clearly reflected in the specific policies pertaining to the co-employee immunity and employer exclusion provisions.

Borrell v. Bloomsburg University

207 F. Supp. 3d 454 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2016

Qualified Immunity In ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment, I considered Dr. Fic-ca’s arguments in favor of a grant of qualified immunity and I decided that Dr. Ficca was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Mr.

Eades v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2019

The Court, therefore, concludes that any alleged violation of Plaintiff’s right to privacy under the facts alleged was not a clearly established right under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … established to defeat the application of qualified immunity.

Law Offices of Christopher S. Lucas & Associates v. Disciplinary Board of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

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

Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 , 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)(noting that the bar of the Eleventh Amendment to suit does not extend to municipalities or other agencies that do not qualify as arms of the state), we, like … The statute “creates no substantive rights; it merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere.” City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 , 105 S.Ct. 2427 , 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985).

Stokes

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

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … 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.

Fennell v. Luther

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … 56 And “[u]nless 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.”57

Carver v. Talanca

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

The entirety of Plaintiffs’ qualified immunity argument is as 10 follows: “[t]his was a clear violation of Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional … rights and therefore qualified immunity does not apply.”

Campana v. Muir

585 F. Supp. 33 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1983

Because the Court finds, based on the doctrine of judicial immunity, that the defendant is immune from any liability for damages on the claims asserted in this action, summary judgment will be entered in defendant’s favor … This doctrine, which has its roots in common law, became firmly established in the federal system in 1872 when the Supreme Court decided Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872).

Hovis v. County of Lebanon

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2024

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 would have … Qasim is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. (Doc. 24, pp. 10–18.) Dr. Qasim also argues he is entitled to immunity under the MHPA.

Smith v. Central Dauphin School District

511 F. Supp. 2d 460 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Thus, Defendants will be denied qualified immunity. C.