Case law

Beers v. Northumberland County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2023

Defendants argue that Beers fails to sufficiently allege a constitutional violation, therefore entitling them to qualified immunity to her individual-capacity section 1983 claim.13 Under the qualified … immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Rossman v. PrimeCare Medical, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2022

they are entitled to qualified immunity. … 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

Hetzel v. Swartz

909 F. Supp. 261 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1995

This intentional deprivation of personal property claim is clearly meritless, however, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 , 104 S.Ct. 3194 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), and will be dismissed. … , 612 F.2d 754 (3d Cir.1979), a case challenging, inter alia, the program of mental health care at a prison, held that “when inmates with serious mental ills are effectively prevented from being diagnosed and treated by qualified

Brown v. Hicks

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

a plaintiff [can show] (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Hicks cannot satisfy either prong of the qualified immunity analysis when the disputed facts are viewed in a light most favorable to Brown.

Adams v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2025

“Granting a 12(c) motion results in a determination on the merits at an early stage in the litigation,” and thus, the movant is required “ ‘to clearly establish [ ] that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved … of qualified or other immunity” provided sufficient notice to Adams that the Department of Corrections would seek to assert immunity.

Logue v. The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2024

As an initial matter, Defendants do not dispute that Logue is a qualified individual with a disability. … It further alleges that Logue was admitted to and participated in the DUI program, thus establishing that he was qualified for it.

Capital City Cab Service, Inc. v. SUSQUEHANNA AREA REG. AIRPORT AIRPORT AUTHORITY

470 F. Supp. 2d 462 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 2006

The state-action doctrine, as first established by the Supreme Court in Parker v. … The state-action doctrine is sometimes referred to as "Parker immunity.” But as the Fifth Circuit has cautioned, states are not "immune” from antitrust laws, but rather are exempted from them.

Clauss v. Plan

196 F. Supp. 3d 463 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2016

The medical record quite clearly refutes the independent medical reviewers’ above conclusions. … Gammagard® and Privigen® are specific intravenous immune globulin drug products. (Doc. 23, at 118). .

Harden v. West Side Career and Technology Center

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2025

Similarly, Principal Rava argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Adreya’s constitutional rights, not because the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established. … State actors are “entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Matter of Harrisburg Grand Jury-83-2

638 F. Supp. 43 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 1986

The second category of material requested contains certain immunity letters and draft pleadings. The requested immunity letters and draft pleadings may not constitute grand jury matter. … The court’s holding is not predicated on Speech and Debate Clause immunity for members of Congress.

Grigsby v. Kane

250 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2003

To the extent the complaint alleges official capacity claims, they are clearly barred by the 11th Amendment and must be dismissed. … While it is true that Pennsylvania has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to certain types of claims, it has not waived its immunity with respect to claims for wrongful discharge.

Pievsky v. Ridge

921 F. Supp. 1335 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1996

However, the district court found that the statute clearly contemplated that vacancies would occur only at the expiration of a given term. Id. at 255. … It may also establish, maintain, and operate a rapid transit system between certain points in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Peters v.

United States v. Leta

332 F. Supp. 1357 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1971

The need to wiretap required by Title III was clearly established. … These might well have succeeded, it is argued, if the government had provided prosecutorial immunity and physical protection for its informants.

Richardson v. Murry

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2022

Murray’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 24), will be DENIED with respect to the plaintiff’s remaining RFRA claim, without prejudice to assert the qualified immunity defense. Dr. … Murray asserts for the first time the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. (Doc. 35 at 4-7).

Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n v. Miller

621 F. Supp. 2d 246 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2008

Clearly, PSP must maintain adequate coverage on all shifts to manage daily law enforcement tasks and sudden exigencies. … Fitness for Duty as a Business Necessity Clearly, ensuring members’ fitness for duty is a business necessity vital to the operation of PSP.

United States v. Baker

241 F. Supp. 272 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1965

I do not think that the case qualifies under the exception clause of the statute for the reason that the Republic of Haiti is not a State of the United States. … The best answer to defendants’ contention, it seems to me, is found in this Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1953 (c), to wit, “(c) Nothing contained in this section shall create immunity from criminal prosecution under any laws of *280

In Re Grand Jury (Oo-2h)

211 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2001

In order to qualify for the joint defense privilege, the party asserting the privilege must show that: (1) the communications were made in the course of a joint defense; (2) the statements were designed to further the effort … Therefore, work product immunity does not apply to such documents, and the court will order their production. ■ .

Christopher v. Nestlerode

373 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2005

See Atwater, 532 U.S. at 354-55 , 121 S.Ct. 1536 . [30] This link between causation and qualified immunity is not often drawn, but, provided that relevant distinctions between the two concepts are maintained, it is fully … Zapata, 175 F.3d 41, 43-48 (1st Cir.1999). [31] This is, of course, the standard for qualified immunity and is properly viewed as an affirmative defense to be asserted by the defendant, rather than an element of the plaintiff's

Guziewicz v. Gomez

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2020

As to qualified immunity, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … whether the right was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.”

Morgan v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2023

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”110 “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, the contours of a right are sufficiently … Consequently, the allegations do not establish that Morgan’s constitutional rights were violated, let alone that those rights were clearly established.