Case law

Crouse v. South Lebanon Township

668 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2009

to qualified immunity. … Police officers enjoy qualified immunity unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright, 409 F.3d at 599-600.

Williams v. Wapinsky

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2024

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. … Given that Williams has failed to allege that Defendants violated a clearly established right in this setting, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this Eighth Amendment claim. IV.

Rittenhouse Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2021

they therefore fail to establish qualified immunity. … Nevertheless, the court still concludes that O’Hara and McGonigle are entitled to qualified immunity because, as detailed above, the right at issue in this case was not clearly established at the time of the facts of this

Hoffman v. Lehman

926 F. Supp. 510 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1996

violation of clearly established law. … Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs have stated a substantive due process claim based upon clearly established law, the evidence so far developed entitles them to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity

Craig v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2025

Qualified immunity applies to federal and state actors unless (1) the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate a violation, and (2) the alleged right was clearly established … Supp. 623, 630-33 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 889 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1989) (denying qualified immunity to a prison board based on prisoners’ clearly established right to a “safe prison environment” free from inmate violence

Vicky M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit

689 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2009

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position at all relevant times could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal … NEIU Defendants The individual NEIU defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

Shoop v. Dauphin County

766 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1991

Courts have granted public officials performing discretionary functions qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable … Shoop’s arrest, the facts which are established without contradiction do not establish probable cause or reasonable belief in probable cause on the part of the deputies sufficient to award qualified immunity for the arrest

Ward v. Noonan

147 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2015

“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.” … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from suit for damages where their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Williams ex rel. Williams v. Papi

30 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendant next argues that “an additional and fully sufficient basis exists to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, namely qualified immunity.” (Doc. 10 at 12.) … It has likewise held that when a “complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.”

Gonzalez v. Romanisko

744 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1990

The Defendant, Mastruzzo, here moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on allegations of qualified immunity and insufficiency of the evidence. … The principles of qualified immunity that we have reaffirmed today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly estab *98 lished principles

Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

189 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs can establish their state-created danger claim, Coach Walkowiak is entitled to qualified immunity. … In analyzing whether the coach was entitled to qualified immunity, the Third Circuit explained that although district court opinions “may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified

Ezenwa v. Gallen

906 F. Supp. 978 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1995

In contrast, if “the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he ‘could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.’ ” In re City of Philadelphia … the defense of qualified immunity.

Pansy v. Preate

870 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1994

The present case law establishes that qualified immunity shields all Defendants. … Qualified Immunity.

Pribula v. Wyoming Area School District

599 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2009

Qualified Immunity “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 … Each of the individual Defendants in this case is entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Anderson v.

Mariana v. Fisher

226 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2002

A $50 million “enforcement” fund was established to finance enforcement of the Qualifying Statutes and the MSA. Pennsylvania’s Qualifying Statute is called the “Tobacco Settlement Agreement Act,” (“TSAA”), 35 Pa. Stat. … First, to qualify as state action, the restraint must be “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy.” Midcal, 445 U.S. at 104 , 100 S.Ct. 937 (citation omitted).

Moeck v. Pleasant Valley School District

983 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2013

Qualified immunity does not apply where state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … For a qualified immunity analysis, therefore, the court must examine: 1) whether the officials violated a constitutional right; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Id.

R.B. v. Enterline

304 F. Supp. 3d 456 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2018

The ultimate outcome for Benjamin remains the same, as I find that this constitutional violation did not become clearly established law in this Circuit until Mann v. … Qualified Immunity "Clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity means that 'the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

I.H. v. Cumberland Valley School District

842 F. Supp. 2d 762 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2012

to qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

O'Donnell v. Cumberland County

195 F. Supp. 3d 724 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2016

“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.” … Thus, only where a plaintiff “fails to state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, [is] a defendant pleading qualified immunity ... entitled to dismissal .before the commencement of discovery.” Id.

Colon v. Colonial Intermediate Unit 20

443 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2006

The official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established when he acted, because the official cannot be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments. Id. … Next, defendant Karpen argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. To this extent, defendant Karpen claims that the plaintiffs have not cited to any clearly established “law” which he is alleged to have violated.