Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,574 results
0.43s
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
Cited 0 timesUnknownRivera-Guadalupe v. City of Harrisburg d/b/a Bureau of Police
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2023
Contrary to Pierce’s contention, he is not entitled to qualified immunity because the operative complaint adequately alleges a constitutional violation of a clearly established right.2 A. … Because Pierce’s alleged conduct violates a clearly established right, Pierce is not entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture. IV.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2021
“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the 26 official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the … rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBrazil v. Scranton School Board
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2023
While courts should resolve questions of qualified immunity at the earliest possible stage of litigation, a finding of qualified immunity “‘will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established … If the complaint fails to state a claim of a violation of clearly established law on its face, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2025
Salisbury sought dismissal based on qualified immunity. … © The officers thus also enjoy qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2025
“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … Furthermore, if the law did not put the defendant on notice that her conduct would be clearly unlawful, qualified immunity is appropriate. Bayer v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownStengle v. Office of Dispute Resolution
631 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2009
Even if she had, we believe that the doctrine of qualified immunity would protect Defendant Smith. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States v. Administrator of the Estate of McCall
313 F. Supp. 1399 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1969
This evidence clearly established that in 1951, the plaintiff filed notices of lien in Carbon and Schuylkill Counties covering assessments, totalling $356,589.64 for the years 1943-1945; that these liens related to the joint … Some of which would qualify as summaries of business records. . See note 2, supra. . See 12 P.S. §§ 878-880.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2022
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 … The burden to establish qualified immunity rests with the defendant claiming its protection. Beers-Capitol v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDominique Plaunt v. Perry County Children and Youth Services, et al.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2026
Moreover, the defendants were entitled to either absolute immunity, or at least qualified immunity based upon the court order which supported their actions in removing Plaunt’s children from her home as well as the evidence … Her arguments that the defendants are not entitled to immunity because their actions were investigative in nature and their constitutional violations were clearly established, and that the Court misapplied the Rooker-Feldman
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknown441 F. Supp. 411 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1977
Defendant Magistrate Samuel Hill has moved to dismiss on the grounds that he is a judicial officer and therefore immune from suit. … Justices of the Peace, it is also well established, fall within the ambit of this doctrine. See Pritt v. Johnson, 264 F.Supp. 167, 170 (M.D.Pa.1967); Hohensee v. Hart, Civil No. 76-464 (M.D.Pa., June 22, 1976).
Cited 4 timesPublishedCommonwealth of Pa. v. NAT. ASS'N OF FLOOD INSURERS
420 F. Supp. 221 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 1976
Consequently, if the Secretary did undertake to publicize the program, the way in which he chose to do it would qualify for the ‘discretionary function’ exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity found in the Federal * … Since the record clearly indicates that the Secretary’s delegate considered disseminating information concerning the flood insurance program and in fact has continually taken affirmative action to publicize the program, it
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2023
the [arresting] officers possessed.’”77 Defendants have the burden to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity, in this case, to show that the rights at issue were not clearly established.78 … the Court concludes that Defendants violated Barasky’s clearly established constitutional rights and are not entitled to qualified immunity. B.
Cited 0 timesUnknown313 F. Supp. 1150 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 1970
Without considering the merits of the alleged facts in plaintiff’s complaint, it is clear that a prima facie case has been established. And, as reiterated in Scher v. … In Scher the Third Circuit clearly rejects defendants’ suggestion that only cases involving “racial or religious overtones” are cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .
Cited 3 timesPublished134 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2001
Just as § 1983, § 1985(3) is an enforcement provision applicable only where the plaintiff succeeds in establishing an independent violation of federal- law. … HACC has also raised a sovereign immunity defense to Tyrrell’s claims against it.
Cited 22 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 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.” Saucier v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown854 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 10, 1994
Additionally, Occulto argues that he is protected from a Section 1983 suit for damages by qualified immunity and that Ha-midian’s Due Process rights were not violated since she was not actually arrested at the intersection … Instead, the cases cited by Hamidian deal with a police officer’s potential immunity from Section 1983 suits and the collateral-estoppel effect of a state court conviction on a litigant’s ability to bring a Section 1983 action
Cited 9 timesPublished346 F. Supp. 3d 723 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2018
When compared to businesses clearly outside the purview of Title III, a donation center aligns more closely with a service establishment than an entity not subject to Title III. … Furthermore, the DOJ's Technical Assistance Manual does not speak directly on the issue of whether a plasma donation center or similar entity qualifies as a service establishment.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDennis v. Susquehanna Township
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2024
Qualified immunity protects officials, including police officers, from suits for money damages, when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna