Case law

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.

Corneal v. Jackson Tp., Huntingdon County, Pa.

313 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2003

In support of summary judgment on the substantive due process claim, the individual Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity.

Vartan v. Harristown Development Corp.

655 F. Supp. 430 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 1987

Accordingly, since the challenged actions were undertaken pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law, and hence pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy, the Corporation, and Keisling acting on its behalf, are immune from … City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40 , 102 S.Ct. 835 , 70 L.Ed.2d 810 (1982), to establish that the Urban Redevelopment Law is neutral on the precise method to be used to accomplish redevelopment and cannot shield Keis-ling’s and

Eash v. County of York, Pennsylvania

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

Only Bixler is entitled to qualified immunity. The Individual Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on Eash’s Fourth Amendment claim. … Under the defense of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Futch v. Stone

782 F. Supp. 284 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1992

Consequently, if the language or legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 clearly establishes an intent to apply or not to apply the Act retroactively, this court could also balk at *286 the opportunity to reconcile … SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY As a sovereign, the United States is immune from suit and can be sued only in matters for which Congress has waived immunity. United States v.

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.

Swanger v. Warrior Run Sch. Dist.

346 F. Supp. 3d 689 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2018

To establish a violation of Section 504, a plaintiff must show that "(1) [s]he is 'disabled' as defined by the Act; (2) [s]he is 'otherwise qualified' to participate in school activities; (3) the school or the board of education … The individual school defendants also argue that they are entitled to absolute immunity with respect to Counts III and IV pursuant to the Paul D.

Hewlette-Bullard v. Pocono Mountain School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2021

Defendants Robison and Gustafson argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim because it was not clearly established at the time of J.H-B.’s conduct that Tinker could be applied … Supp. 3d at 647 (concluding, prior to B.L., that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established whether First Amendment and Tinker applied to student’s off-campus online speech).

Gregor v. Johnsen

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2019

Magistrate Judge Carlson began his analysis with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time that Defendant Johnsen acted ( … id. at 10-20)—and concluded that Defendant Johnsen’s conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional right, and, therefore, Defendant Johnsen was entitled to qualified immunity (id. at 20).

McCullough v. Clinton County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2024

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages “in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … 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.”

Williams v. Jones

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

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. Pearson v. … 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

Witters v. Smith

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability pursuant to Section 1983 where their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory … clearly established.

Krug v. Bloomsburg University

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2025

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 … Krug’s rights were not clearly established because, in the situation faced by Dr.

Cole v. Finsel

691 F. Supp. 841 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1988

Defendant Reinhardt has moved to dismiss the claim on three alternative grounds (1) prosecutorial immunity; (2) qualified good faith immunity; and (3) that his conduct did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation … immunity from suit.

United States v. Clark

651 F. Supp. 76 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1986

Defendants contend that the recordings at issue fail to qualify under the law enforcement exclusion for two reasons. … Husband-Wife Immunity Defendants argue that the use of the tape recordings of the married defendants’ conversations as evidence would violate the husband-wife privilege which is recognized at common law and therefore by F.R.E

Mondesir v. Kingston Borough

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

The court finds, however, that qualified immunity is not appropriate in the instant case. … 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

Marshall v. Corbett

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2022

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. … However, qualified immunity may still shield Defendants from Plaintiff’s money damages claims if the constitutional right at use was not clearly established at the time it was violated.

Doe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2026

“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.” Eberhardinger v. City of York, 341 F. … Qualified immunity should only be found at the motion to dismiss stage when it is established by the facts on the face of the complaint. O’Donnell v. Cumberland Cnty., 195 F. Supp. 3d 724, 735 (M.D.

Collins

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2026

OT | “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 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.

United States v. Osticco

580 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 1984

Accordingly, defendant’s immunity argument must be rejected. V. … Cortese’s rehearsal of what had happened clearly was to enable him to fabricate a plausible story for the grand jury if he were to be called to testify.