Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,574 results
0.33s
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2026
“Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct … that “[i]t is defendants’ burden, not [the plaintiff’s] or the court’s, to establish that qualified immunity applies” (citation to the record omitted)).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2019
to qualified immunity. … “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 reasonable
Cited 0 timesUnknownChalhoub v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 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 … The defendant bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Burns v. PA Dep't of Corr., 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011)(citing Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819).
Cited 0 timesUnknown36 F. Supp. 3d 511 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2014
Luzerne County qualifies as a local agency under the PPSTCA. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501; Rittenhouse Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 861 F.Supp.2d 470, 489 (M.D.Pa.2012). … The individual county employees, however, are not protected by immunity.
Cited 4 timesPublished441 F. Supp. 127 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1978
The Court found, however, that all of the Defendants acted in good faith and were immune from damages in their individual capacities. … In Hander , the Court found that a junior college was a local entity and not entitled to sovereign immunity because the statutory scheme for establishing such colleges vested all residual authority with the local Board of
Cited 7 timesPublished331 F. Supp. 3d 412 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2018
The PSLRA further immunizes certain statements from § 10(b) liability if they are "forward-looking" The immunity applies if one of two scenarios is true: "either the 'forward-looking statement is ... identified as [such], … Plaintiff argues, first, that these statements do not qualify for the safe harbor because they are not forward-looking. (Doc. 106, p. 37).
Cited 1 timesPublishedFought v. City of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2024
to qualified immunity.” … Officer Homza continues, “[s]pecifically, Officer Homza is entitled to qualified immunity because an uncommanded police K-9 bite does not violate clearly established law.” (Doc. 107, at 29).
Cited 0 timesUnknownM.S. ex rel. Hall v. Susquehanna Township School District
43 F. Supp. 3d 412 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2014
Individual immunity Although the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a negligent hiring claim against Defendants Kegerise and Lovelidge, Defendants argue that they are immune from this and all state claims by the PPSTCA … The Court will therefore dismiss the negligent hiring claim without prejudice to an amended complaint wherein Plaintiffs may aver sufficient facts to indicate that the Defendants are not qualified for immunity under the PPSTCA
Cited 45 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2024
In that motion, defendant argues he is entitled to qualified immunity. Under the law, consideration of qualified immunity takes precedence. See Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 277 (3d Cir. 2002)(citing Hunter v. … | On the other hand, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to | dismissal before the commencement of discovery unless the plaintiff's allegations | state a claim for violation of clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 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 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.” Saucier v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2020
“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 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.” Saucier v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown891 F. Supp. 1040 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1995
The district court found that foster parents do not qualify as state actors under any one of the three tests, stating: ... [The foster parents] do not qualify as state actors under the public function test. … Qualified Immunity Because we find that no violation of plaintiffs First Amendment rights has occurred under the facts presented, we do not reach defendants’ assertion that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 10 timesPublished63 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 1999
Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity. (Def's Answer (Dkt. Entry 15) ¶43.) … "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are 'shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2020
established right under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.” … immunity as to Eades’ right to privacy claim under § 1983, as the case law at the time of the violation alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint did not clearly establish what acts of dissemination would or would not violate a
Cited 0 timesUnknown519 F. Supp. 545 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 1981
from liability for damages unless Dray-ton’s constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of their conduct, they knew or should have known of the right, and knew or should have known that their conduct violated … immunity, the Defendants have not had a fair opportunity to address the issue.
Cited 6 timesPublishedWilliams v. PA Department of Corrections
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2021
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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2026
The Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity At This Time The defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs … 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2024
PSP Defendants assert that even if this is true, Trooper Palmer is entitled to qualified immunity because the Third Circuit has not recognized a clearly established right to be free from reckless investigation. … Considering the lack of Circuit or Supreme Court guidance, this Court concludes the right to be free from reckless investigation is not clearly established such that Crosen’s claim may overcome qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown429 F. Supp. 640 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1976
from this suit under the doctrine of judicial immunity. … The first three prerequisites clearly are met here and require no analysis.
Cited 40 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2024
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. … A court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity considers a two-pronged inquiry: whether, based on the facts, a constitutional right has been violated and, if so, whether the right was “clearly established” at the time
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna