Case law

Goldy v. Beal

429 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.

Bulkley v. Albert-Heise

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2024

on next page) Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers “from liability or civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … This “clearly established” standard protects the balance between vindication those acts served.

Butler v. Zdziarski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2021

“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.

Woods

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

Second, Defendants’ qualified immunity argument fails. … The final inquiry for the qualified immunity analysis is whether Plaintiffs’ right was “clearly established” at the time of the disputed conduct. Plaintiffs pleadings plausibly show as much.

Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

731 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2010

To recover on a claim for recoupment, a party must establish that: (1) the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the main claim; (2) it seeks relief of the same kind and nature as that sought by the main … Putting aside whether LMC could meet the first two prongs of this test, a point that is debatable, it clearly cannot meet the third prong.

Ali v. Harry

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

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or 4 Ali lists Independence Day, Thanksgiving … The court has “discretion to decide which of the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first.” Id.

Barrick v. Perry County Prison

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2023

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.

Haywood v. Martynowicz

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2020

Thus, “[uJnless 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 … “TT]o resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff has shown the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Bennett v. Scott

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 2022

“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.

Bartley v. Taylor

25 F. Supp. 3d 521 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2014

D.C. 183], 939 F.2d 1011, 1015-16 (D.C.Cir.1991) (holding that public officials were entitled to qualified immunity for criticism they leveled at publishers of pornography and noting that “the Supreme Court has never found … Meese, 291 U.S.App.D.C. 183 , 939 F.2d 1011, 1015-16 (D.C.Cir.1991) (holding that public officials were entitled to qualified immunity for criticism they leveled at publishers of pornography and noting that “the Supreme Court

Tice v. PSP Trooper Tyler Prisk

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects police officers who make wrong but reasonable judgment calls absent clearly established law.” Urda v. Sokso, No. 24-1804, 2025 WL 2046175, at *1 (3d Cir. July 22, 2025). … Courts consider two prongs when determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established.”

Mawson v. Desimone

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 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 … At the time of the stop, the law was clearly established that police need at least reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop; however, as the report explains, whether qualified immunity applies here is dependent upon

Page-Jones v. Berfield

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

established as such, so they are entitled to qualified immunity.” … “Even if none exists, it may be possible that a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ in the Court of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Weston v. Lensbower

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

Roberts v. Luther

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2021

of qualified immunity.” … “Even if none exists, it may be possible that a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ in the Court of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.” Id. (quoting Taylor v.

Seltzer v. South Manheim Township

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2025

Qualified Immunity As an alternative to the arguments addressed above, the individual defendants also assert qualified immunity. … 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

Bakare v. Pinnacle Health Hospitals, Inc.

469 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2006

The following claims for damages clearly arise out of the peer review process, therefore triggering HCQIA immunity: (1) breach of contract claim with respect to the alleged breach of the Medical Staff Bylaws during the peer … Accordingly, the court finds that the parties did not clearly intend to be bound by a confidentiality term.

Dawkins v. Ransom

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2022

“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.

Demuro-Correll v. Haidle

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 2025

- “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 … 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 16 established

Leaphart v. Campbell

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2023

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 … the right was clearly established.