Case law

Rodriguez v. Cline

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2023

Qualified Immunity The Court will also deny Cline’s assertion of qualified immunity. … for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Krug v. Bloomsburg University

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2023

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only if “the contours of the right” are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Parfaite v. Lippincott

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

After setting forth the standards applicable to qualified immunity, defendant Lippincott argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did nothing unlawful or inconsistent with clearly established law: … Nothing Lippincott did violated clearly established law and for that reason, she is also entitled to qualified immunity.

Beam v. Western Wayne School District

165 F. Supp. 3d 200 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2016

To establish a claim pursuant to Section 504, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he is “disabled” as defined by the Act; (2) he is “otherwise qualified” to participate in school activities; (3) the school or board of education … However, the connection between placing a seven-year-old female student on the same bus as high school boys, one of whom the school district clearly knew had a history of socially inappropriate and violent behavior, and the

Bailey v. Doe I

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2022

The Court will also deny Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. … for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Smith v. Mulvey

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2025

the right at issue was clearly established at the time of a defendant's alleged misconduct.” … If the right violated was “clearly established,” then the official is not entitled to immunity.

Campana v. Muir

615 F. Supp. 871 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 1985

In certain cases, where the law is “so clear and well established” the moving party’s position is deemed untenable. Maneikis v. … Campana further qualified that statement, however, by saying: “[I]f I knew he was going to raise judicial immunity before I filed this suit. No, I wouldn’t do it [sue Judge Muir.]” (Id. at 103.) Finally, when A.

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. NC Owners, LLC

256 F. Supp. 3d 550 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2017

PHEAA contends that it is an arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, ipso jure, cannot qualify as a “citizen” of the state. (Id, ¶¶ 11-12; Doc. 26 at 3-21). … Conclusion Defendants have established the elements of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 .

United States v. Mahler

567 F. Supp. 82 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1983

Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176, 187 , 100 S.Ct. 2601, 2609 , 65 L.Ed.2d 696 (1980), and “[ajbsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” … As explained by the Court in In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Greentree, 644 F.2d 348, 350 (5th Cir.1981): [I]t is well established that the exception under the immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 6002 , which authorizes prosecution

Landau v. Lamas

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2019

Qualified immunity attaches unless the official's conduct violated such a clearly established right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Williams v. Winter

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2020

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND WILLIAMS’ SECTION 1983 CLAIM I also address Winter’s qualified immunity to Williams’ Section 1983 claim. … Thus, the qualified immunity inquiry ends there. Winter is entitled to qualified immunity from Williams’ Section 1983 claim. C.

Borrell v. Bloomsburg University

955 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2013

Amendment immunity.” … And, the Third Circuit has held that a property interest may qualify as a “sufficient ‘plus’ ” in the stigma-plus analysis.

Velasquez v. City of Wilkes-Barre

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2024

Qualified Immunity Next, the defendant police officers allege that they are shielded from liability based upon qualified immunity. After a careful review, the motion will be | denied on this point. … 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

Brewer v. Dauphin County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2022

In determining if an official is entitled to qualified immunity for a §1983 claim, a court must decide (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established … Dec. 15, 2020), goes against a finding of qualified immunity because inmates had “a clearly established right to protection from a heightened exposure to COVID-19, despite the novelty of the virus.”

Wilson v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

693 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1988

Exculpatory provisions must spell out the intent of the parties with the utmost particularity, and the burden to establish immunity from liability rests upon the party who asserts such immunity. See Simmons v. … and explicitly provides them with immunity from liability.

In re Wyoming Talley Co-op. Ass'n

198 F. 436 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1912

It is urged that: (1) The subject of the act is not clearly expressed in its title. (2) Special and exclusive privileges or immunities are thereby granted. (3) Abridgment of the right of persons to make contracts. … Nor was it intended, or to be regarded, in the sense of an immunity against debt.

A.L. Blades & Sons, Inc. v. Yerusalim

921 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1996

Other facts established by the record will be discussed below as relevant to the Discussion. III. … A Standard Governing Privileges and Immunities Clause Claim Review of a claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause is a two-step process.

Boone v. Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation

373 F. Supp. 2d 484 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2005

The plaintiffs federal claims had been properly dismissed because the state did not qualify as a “person” under § 1983, Will v. Mich. … established by its legislature.

Petrucci

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2026

Second, “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … It has likewise held that when a “complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants' actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was

Skehan v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College

436 F. Supp. 657 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1977

, official *661 immunity and attorney’s fees. … 5) “Is the failure to provide a due process hearing prior to discharge where such is clearly required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.