Case law

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.

Taalibuddeen v. Walmart Inc, Headquarters

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2024

We thus turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis— whether the law was clearly established. … “Thus, only where a plaintiff ‘fails to state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, [is] a defendant pleading qualified immunity . . . entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.’” Id.

Lyons v. Salem Township

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2019

The court may grant qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent that the defendant did 13 not violate rights that were clearly established at … In light of the fact that qualified immunity includes consideration of whether the law was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct, this defense, which focuses on the state of the law, presents a question

Bartol v. Arbogast

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2022

Aug. 23, 2006) (rejecting qualified immunity defense given that “the right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation”). … Therefore, the Moving Defendants have not established their entitlement to qualified immunity at this time. B.

Cody, II v. Howell

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2024

did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … 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

Wilson v. Mahally

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2023

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of 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. … 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” at the time of the alleged violation

Clark v. Lutcher

77 F.R.D. 415 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1977

Clark can clearly object to answering any questions which he believes intrude into the protected area. See Perry v. McGuire, 36 F.R.D. 272 (S.D.N.Y.1964). … Brittain is not aware of any evidence which conclusively establishes David F. Clark’s innocence, and that Mr. Brittain engaged in plea bargaining with John A. Mihalik, Clark’s counsel. Mr.

Redclift v. Schuylkill County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2022

OFFICER JUNGBAER’S INVOCATION OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Officer Jungbaer asserts he is protected by qualified immunity, and contends that there is no clearly established right that a police officer is responsible … 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.

Parfaite v. Lippincott

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2025

“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 … Given that the Third Circuit has observed that a failure-to-intervene claim is not clearly established outside the excessive-force and sexual-assault contexts, we conclude that Lippincott is entitled to qualified immunity

United States v. Lovecchio

561 F. Supp. 221 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1983

It is still firmly established, for example, that a defendant is entitled neither to a wholesale discovery of the Government’s evidence, United States v. … jury under a grant of immunity, whether called at trial or not.

Kitchen v. Clinton County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2020

“A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged 7 With regard to Counts … For a qualified immunity analysis, therefore, the court must examine: 1) whether the officials violated a constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Wright v.

Robins

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2026

for purposes of qualified immunity.” … a “clearly established” right.

Brown v. Monroy

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

“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.

Germany v. Briggs

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 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.

Luntz v. Hileman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 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 13 constitutional … 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.

Grant v. Erie Insurance Exchange

542 F. Supp. 457 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1982

Agreement or Act to Boycott, Coerce or Intimidate The final prerequisite to qualify for McCarran-Ferguson Act immunity is that the challenged activity is not an agreement or act to boycott, coerce or intimidate. 15 U.S.C. … Similarly, several Defendants rely upon the Noerr-Pennington doctrine to establish immunity from the alleged antitrust violations.

Sweeney v. St. Joseph's Hospital

769 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1991

Additionally, it appears that most of the defendants would be immune from suit. … . §§ 8332.2 and 8364 8 (providing qualified immunity for directors of non-profit corporations); Pennhurst State School & Hospital v.

Beatty v. Gardner

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

While the third search—Beatty’s strip search—was not clearly supported by reasonable suspicion, qualified immunity shields defendants from judgment on this claim and the resultant retaliation claim. … Because this right was not clearly established when defendants conducted the strip search, they are shielded from judgment for doing so by qualified immunity and will be granted summary judgment on this claim.

Musila v. Lock Haven University

970 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2013

Additionally, plaintiff argued that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, which, once again, defendants did not raise as a defense, and which the Court declines to address. … The Court will not address any arguments that defendants should be granted qualified immunity, as Count I fails, in its entirety, as a matter of law. As a result, Count I will be dismissed with prejudice. 2.

Stroman v. Pennsylvania Dept. Of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 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 … 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.