Case law

DAVIS v. WETZEL

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2020

Finally, DOC Defendants assert they are protected by qualified immunity because there is no controlling case law establishing that their conduct clearly violated statutory or constitutional rights. … For a right to be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, “its contours [must be] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Williams v.

Mattes v. National Fidelity Life Insurance

506 F. Supp. 955 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1980

The provision clearly states that, by itself, the death of the insured will not qualify for protection under the policy. … According to the companies, the pilot clearly realized the difference between his disability and life insurance policies and, therefore, had notice of the fact that under the circumstances of his death, he would qualify for

Strode v. Franklin County Jail

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants also assert that, to the extent Plaintiff has sued them in their individual capacity, they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. … “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.

Rogers v. Pocono Mountain East High School

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

liability; and (3) Lesoine is shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Landau v. Lamas

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2022

In the context of an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial of summary judgment in which the defendants asserted entitlement to qualified immunity on a female immigration detainee’s claims related to sexual … Thus, where the District Court has adopted a set of facts for the purpose of ruling on the qualified immunity issue, we must accept those facts when reviewing a denial of immunity.

Pollick v. Haar

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2024

defense.57 In any event, it is clear that Haar has raised colorable federal defenses in the form of qualified immunity and quasi-judicial immunity.58 Moreover, it cannot credibly be argued that Haar was not acting within … Aug. 11, 2009) (holding that defendants had “raised colorable federal defenses, including sovereign immunity and qualified immunity”); Benitez v. Atkins, No. 1:17CV233-HSO-RHW, 2017 WL 11831790, at *3 (S.D. Miss.

Bressi v. Northumberland County Court

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

Plaintiff appears to further object to Judge Saporito’s findings regarding Defendants’ immunity on the basis that these Defendants violated his clearly established statutory and constitutional rights and therefore are not … entitled to qualified immunity.

Easley v. Hollibaugh

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

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 … Defendant Hollibaugh asserts that she is entitled to qualified immunity “because there is no clearly established case law that prohibits a prison official from issuing a misconduct for harassing and false

Garanin v. City of Scranton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2019

which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Therefore, these factual disputes, in addition to our already-established analysis on the issue of qualified immunity at this stage in the proceeding, preclude a finding that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Niklaus v. Vivadent, Inc., U.S.A.

767 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1991

The instant matter clearly falls in the category of cases requiring expert medical testimony. … However, nothing in Benedetto’s background indicates that he is qualified to make a medical diagnosis of Dr. Niklaus’ condition.

McClenton v. Doe (1) Ms. Ryan

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … indication” that a defendant’s conduct at issue did not violate a “clearly established” right.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Company

348 F. Supp. 954 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1972

. § 1983 must initially establish two elements. First, the conduct complained of must have been done under color of state law. Private action, however wrongful, cannot form the basis for relief under § 1983. Adickes v. … Secondly, the conduct complained of must deprive another of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States. See Adickes, supra.

Williamsport Sanitary Authority v. Train

464 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1979

Clearly jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and Defendant’s argument that subject matter jurisdiction lies only in the Court of Claims is erroneous. U. S. v. … Defendant lastly argues that Pennsylvania is immune from unconsented suit by its citizens in federal court pursuant to the United States Constitution’s Eleventh Amendment, and therefore Plaintiff should not be permitted to

Bramble v. Wetzel

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

Dewald v. French

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2022

“The doctrine of 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.” … In assessing whether qualified immunity applies, the court engages in a two-part analysis: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a right had been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established when

Hill et ux v. Harry

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2023

“The doctrine of 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. … In addition, the burden of establishing qualified immunity lies with the defendants. See Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (3d Cir. 2010).

MacMurray v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College

428 F. Supp. 1171 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1977

He must establish that his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Such a constitutional right can be so clearly established that it is unreasonable for a defendant to rely upon contrary advice from legal counsel. McCormick has not addressed this issue sufficiently in his affidavit.

Roberts v. Lau

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2022

While courts “tend to discuss prosecutorial immunity based on alleged acts, our ultimate analysis is whether a defendant has established absolute prosecutorial immunity from a given claim.” Id. … See Yarris, 465 F.3d at 139 (“Prosecutors who are not entitled to absolute immunity from a plaintiff’s claims may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity from those same claims.”)

Boykin v. Bloomsburg University

893 F. Supp. 378 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1995

Also, the individual Commonwealth Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … We are of the view that the actions taken by the Commonwealth Defendants did not violate any clearly established rights of the Boykins.

Freeman v. Murray

163 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2001

In addition, he makes a general claim that he is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions. We will address these issues seriatim. A. … D.Qualified Immunity Defendant Murray also raises the issue of qualified immunity.