Case law

Zvonek v. Walters

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

Determining whether qualified immunity applies is a two | ‘step process:” “[flirst, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights ... … | 13 | Accordingly, the qualified immunity analysis is completed at the first step, defendant did not violate clearly established rights.

Wynne v. Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania

639 F. Supp. 76 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1985

May Shippensburg be characterized as a state agency which is immune to suit in federal court due to immunity conferred by the 11th Amendment? … Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 , 104 S.Ct. 900 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984), which states in pertinent part: This Court’s decisions thus establish that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens

McAndrew v. Northumberland County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2023

Qualified Immunity Even though the Court has already dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim, it will briefly address the issue of qualified immunity. … will consider two prongs to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established.49 If the answer

Sgagias

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2025

The District Attorney Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

CROWDER v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 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 … 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. Keystone Sanitation Co., Inc.

867 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1994

Judicial Review Generally, CERCLA § 113(h) establishes a bar to private party challenges to the EPA’s selection of response actions prior to completion of such actions. Boarhead Corp. v. … The notion that a recoupment counterclaim is permissible in a CERCLA action is premised on the theory that the United States clearly expressed a waiver of sovereign immunity when it brought suit.

Carter, III v. Klemm

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 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. … The burden to establish qualified immunity rests with the defendant claiming its protection. Beers-Capitol v.

PHAM v. WALTERS

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2023

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects a government actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiffs 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

Hazzouri v. West Pittston Borough

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2019

A determination that the conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right precludes the granting of qualified immunity. … We acknowledge that discovery may cast a new light on the qualified immunity analysis and whether that right was clearly established, but at this stage we find that there is no reason to necessarily believe that qualified

Betancourth v. Knorr

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2024

Here, because the parties challenge whether Officer Knorr violated a clearly established right, the Court will consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis first. … Thus, because there are still questions of material fact surrounding whether Officer Knorr violated a clearly established right, Officer Knorr is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

Gatto v. Lackawanna County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2021

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 alleged facts, a constitutional right has been violated and, if so, whether the right was “clearly established” at

Barnes v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

706 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2010

To establish a claim under § 1981, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that he is a member of a racial minority; (2) intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the defendant; and (3) discrimination concerning one or more … with timing to establish a causal link.

Santana Products, Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.

249 F. Supp. 2d 463 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2003

In sum, the MSL decision clearly supports a denial of Bobrick’s Noerr defense. (Id., citation omitted.) … To overcome the presumption of de minimis impact on competition, a plaintiff must show that the representations " 'were [1] clearly false, [2] clearly material, [3] clearly likely to induce reasonable reliance, [4] made to

Ajaj v. United States of America

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2024

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For qualified-immunity purposes, “clearly established rights are derived either from binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent or from a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in

Sipkoff v. Whinston

354 F. Supp. 683 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1973

The United States of America moved to dismiss on the ground that not only has the United States not waived its sovereign immunity, but there is a specific statute prohibiting this suit. … He has not established under the Enochs test that “under the most liberal view of the law and the facts, the United States cannot establish its claim,” i. e., the plaintiff, as president, was not the “person” within the meaning

Cruz v. Auker

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

“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.” Pearson, 556 U.S. at 232.

L.S. as mother and natural guardian of D.S., a minor v. HANOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT; NATHAN BARRETT; DAPHNE PUGH; JESSICA RAMAGLI; and MARY FARRELL

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2026

has enough evidence to go to a jury on violations of the | equal protection clause through a hostile educational environment theory, she must overcome the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis … Furthermore, the motion will also be granted as to the Section | 1983 claims against Nathan Barrett and Daphne Pugh because of their qualified immunity.

Wilson v. Lackawanna County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that Dr. Zaloga is entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 68 at 13.) The Court concludes that Defendants have not made the requisite showing. In Rivas-Villegas v. … Ed. 2d 164, 2021 WL 4822662 (2021), the Court stated that “Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Stevens v. Sullum

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2021

Generally, immunity takes two forms: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012) | (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability | unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly | established

Royal v. Boone

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2024

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 … (2) ‘whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct.’