Case law

Rodriguez v. Cline

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2021

Rodriguez does not address Defendants’ qualified immunity or state law immunity arguments. (See generally Docs. 17, 18.) … Having reached this conclusion, the Court will not consider Defendants’ qualified immunity argument.

Fairweather

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2026

There are two kinds of immunity under § 1983: qualified immunity and absolute immunity. Id. at 135. … Although most public officials are entitled to only qualified immunity, public officials who perform ‘“special functions’” are entitled to absolute immunity. Id. (quoting Butz v.

Charter Risk Retention Group Insurance v. Rolka

796 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1992

The orders directed the companies to establish why they should not be required to obtain insurance coverage by an insurer licensed in Pennsylvania. … Rather, evidence of discrimination in the present case need only be established according to the meaning of the Act. 9 .

Harrisburg Hospital v. Thornburgh

616 F. Supp. 699 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1985

This language clearly contemplated that an already complying state, in the exercise of its sovereign power, could repeal an already enacted certificate of need program without fear of financial penalty. … State established criteria, however, take the plaintiffs only partially to establishing a protected property interest under the cited cases.

Edwards v. Rivello

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

Defendants argue that Edwards’ state law claim must be dismissed because they are immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment or because the state law claim is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Assuming that Edwards’ allegations qualify as a serious medical condition for purposes of the Eighth Amendment analysis, the court must determine whether he has established a deliberate indifference to that need.

Harper v. NAT. 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.

Weisman v. Sherry

514 F. Supp. 728 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1981

To qualify for application of the principle, an action must by tradition be an exclusive function of government. Relatively few forms of conduct fit this description. … The instant case more clearly resembles Jennings than Voytko . Sherry did not arrest Weisman or conduct the prosecution on behalf of the state.

Black v. Barnes

776 F. Supp. 1000 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1991

To establish a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must establish (1) the presence of conduct that was committed by a person acting under color of state law and (2) that this conduct deprived her of rights, privileges or immunities … Defendant asserts that the regulation did not establish this protected property interest.

Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Mazurkiewicz

712 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1989

Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 [ 91 S.Ct. 1848 , 29 L.Ed.2d 534 ] (1971), Arizona and Pennsylvania welfare officials were prohibited from denying welfare benefits to otherwise qualified recipients who were aliens. … of the Illinois Department of Public Aid which prospectively enjoined him from failing to process applications for benefits under the federal-state programs of Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled within the time limits established

Hetzel v. Swartz

31 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1998

Shortly thereafter, following a blood test, Roy Hetzel learned that he was not only HIV positive, but also that he was suffering from “full blown AIDS” (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). … She indicated she was only aware of the Decedent, having one session with Defendant Swartz, even though the records clearly show a number of visits.

Travillion v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2023

Wetzel in his individual capacity based on qualified immunity. d. Defendants’ motion is DENIED in all other respects. 3. … River & Bay Auth., 70 F.4th 168, 175 (3d Cir. 2023) (“[A] plaintiff alleging that one or more [state] officers engaged in unconstitutional conduct must establish the personal involvement of each named defendant to survive

Sprague v. Cortés

223 F. Supp. 3d 248 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2016

Plaintiffs cannot bring a claim on behalf of voters who are clearly not similarly situated to them in this key respect. … As previously discussed, the Plain English Statement clearly states the effect of the adoption of the amendment, (Doc. 17, Ex. R, at 319).

In Re TMI Litigation Cases Consolidated II

922 F. Supp. 1038 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 1996

Winters’ methodology bears little resemblance to established methods. … Winters certainly may not be the “best” qualified expert in this area.

Strickland

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2026

This immunity is broad. … Strickland, however, may not reassert his Section 1983 claims against Judge Butts or Magisterial District Judge Biichle, as those claims are clearly barred by judicial immunity.

Jain-Miecell v. United States

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2025

Dismissal is required only if the claim “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” , 220 F.3d … Sovereign Immunity also Bars Roberson’s claims.

Bloom v. United States

220 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1999

Summary judgment should be granted where a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element es *386 sential to that party’s case and on which that party will bear the burden at trial.” … These are clearly assessment procedures, not collection procedures.

Todd v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2025

Congress has not expressly abrogated this constitutional immunity with respect to federal civil rights lawsuits against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Commonwealth clearly has not waived … its immunity.

Behar v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

791 F. Supp. 2d 383 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2011

To succeed on a motion under Rule 12(c), the movant must clearly establish that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that “he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. … Judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Society Hill Civic Ass’n v.

Jennings v. Clinton County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2023

In addition, the Court finds Aramark’s assertion of qualified immunity unavailing. “[M]unicipalities have no immunity from damages liability flowing from their constitutional violations.” Hynson ex rel. Hynson v. … It follows that Aramark, as a contractor performing duties on behalf of Clinton County, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Eaves-Voyles v. Almost Family, Inc.

198 F. Supp. 3d 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2016

The court thus reasoned that the plain meaning of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law “clearly indicates that [the term “public body”] is intended to be applied to bodies that receive not only money appropriated by the Commonwealth … However, the legislative history indicates that the act was established to “foster voluntary reporting” by encouraging “‘providers’ (e.g., physicians, nurses, hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care providers) to