Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,574 results
1.08s
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2020
‘clearly established.” … Determining whether qualified immunity applies involves the following two- pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2024
Qualified immunity, however, shields a state actor who commits a constitutional violation if the right in question was not “clearly established” at the time of the relevant conduct. See Pearson v. … In that gray area, we reiterate, qualified immunity applies. See id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2025
qualify an expert.” … Coon does not clearly articulate his process or explain how 4 Although Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnknown751 F. Supp. 1161 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1990
After being granted immunity, Banks testified in the Pickens case that Clancy, not Pickens, had given him the balloons, and that he swallowed the balloons prior to his visit with Pickens. … The facts in this case do not clearly demonstrate that Banks has accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.
Cited 8 timesPublishedRobinson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2025
Indeed, the defendant even admits the plaintiff “was qualified for the position obtained by Tonelotti.” (Doc. 24, at 10). … A plaintiff must establish she is: (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified for the position she sought to attain or retain; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under
Cited 0 timesUnknown828 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1993
Both the domestic ferret and the polecat were introduced in New Zealand, and large feral populations are now established there. … They clearly had control over the premises, at least to that extent.
Cited 8 timesPublishedHarper v. National Flood Insurers Ass'n
516 F. Supp. 725 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 1981
Based upon these undisputed facts, it is clearly seen that plaintiff did not file a claim within the time prescribed by the statutes, the regulations, and the contract. … Defendant has cited a plethora of cases standing for the proposition that any waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed and that the one year statute of limitations is to be strictly adhered to.
Cited 3 timesPublishedGillow, Jr. v. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportaion
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 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 … Eleventh Amendment Immunity According to PennDOT, “[i]t is well established that all Title I of the ADA claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” (Doc. 43, at 3).
Cited 0 timesUnknownHicks v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries
452 F. Supp. 130 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1978
(Purdon), as the basis for personal jurisdiction over Defendant Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. 1 Section 8302 deals with non-qualified foreign corporations and provides generally that any such corporation “ . . . which shall … To determine whether necessary minimum contacts for establishing jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation are present, the Court should consider whether the corporation has purposefully availed itself of the privilege
Cited 26 timesPublishedAntwan L. Richardson v. Brian S. Clark, et al.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2026
right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … It is defendants’ burden to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity, see Halsey v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown543 F. Supp. 66 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1982
. § 1343 (3) “[t]o redress the deprivation, under color of any state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act … While this ground has not been clearly advanced by either Defendant in response to Plaintiffs Complaint, nevertheless, it is well established that a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of subject-matter
Cited 2 timesPublished347 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 1972
, while another, favorable to the defendant, was not granted immunity. … The effect of the immunity grant avoids any incrimination.
Modified by United States v. Philip Berrigan, in No. 72-1938, and Elizabeth McAlister Appeal of Elizabeth McAlister In, 482 F.2d 171 (1973)Cited 24 timesPublished356 F. Supp. 252 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1973
This type of conflict should be avoided except when a right which is clearly at the foundation of our system of government is involved. … The challenged statute was said to violate Article III, § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, prohibiting laws granting special or exclusive privileges or immunities to any individual.
Cited 22 timesPublishedInternational Molders & Allied Workers v. United Foundries, Inc.
644 F. Supp. 499 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 1986
Thus, as with the LMRA, ERISA does not immunize an individual officer from liability. … When the plaintiff’s claim is not clearly frivolous, a district court should ordinarily allow discovery on jurisdiction in order to aid the plaintiff in discharging his burden of establishing in personam jurisdiction.
Cited 5 timesPublishedAmaechi v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2022
, the right the defendant violated was clearly established.” … Further: At the “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis, the question is “whether the officer had fair notice that her conduct was unlawful
Cited 0 timesUnknownErdman v. Nationwide Insurance
510 F. Supp. 2d 363 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2007
In the instant case, the first eligibility requirement is clearly established by Erdman’s two decades of employment with Nationwide. (Doe. 15 ¶ 6; Doc. 18 ¶ 7.) … To establish a prima facie case of association discrimination, a plaintiff must prove the following: (1) the plaintiff was “qualified” for the job at the time of the adverse employment action; (2) the plaintiff was subjected
Cited 7 timesPublishedStitzell v. York Memorial Osteopathic Hospital
754 F. Supp. 1061 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1991
Plaintiff counters that the same case supports his contention that the language does not immunize the defendants from liability. … The application clearly extends the clauses’s coverage to the “duration of [Dr. Stitzell’s] appoint *1066 ment.” (brackets added).
Cited 2 timesPublishedCommonwealth of Pa. v. National Ass'n of Flood Insurers
378 F. Supp. 1339 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1974
The language clearly envisions that the Association’s obligations to issue flood insurance policies only begin after applications for insurance are received and not before. … Specifically, Denenberg requested that HUD establish “a trust fund in an amount equal to the relief sought to be administered” by the Commonwealth.
Modified on other grounds by Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by William Sheppard, Insurance Commissioner v. National Association of Flood Insurers, an Unincorporated Association, 520 F.2d 11 (1975)Cited 20 timesPublishedESTATE OF STEPHEN PUZA v. Carbon County
586 F. Supp. 2d 271 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2007
The plaintiffs have also failed to establish this exception. … Tort Claims Act; and whether the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 6 timesPublishedMontemuro v. Jim Thorpe Area School District
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2022
immunity. … Defendants filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking review of the Court's qualified immunity determination.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna