Case law

Bridges ex rel. D.B. v. Scranton School District

66 F. Supp. 3d 570 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2014

However, “[t]hose courts that have considered instances of psychological or verbal abuse by government actors have typically held that such conduct alone was not severe enough to qualify as a constitutional-tort actionable … Paris would not excuse D.B. from the last few days of school that year, his conduct was not deliberately indifferent or clearly unreasonable.

Minnich v. Northeastern School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2021

“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 a reasonable … ’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”

Sanders v. Rose

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

Qualified Immunity As noted supra, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. No. 190 at 16-19, 59.) … “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

Bryant v. Carlson

489 F. Supp. 1075 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1980

The regulation clearly limits this status to: A. … This decision, moreover, is a judicial prerogative, because another branch of government cannot create a liberty interest and then establish procedures relevant to it which are immune from judicial review. Walker v.

Terrell v. City of Harrisburg Police Department

549 F. Supp. 2d 671 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2008

Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by proving the fol *681 lowing elements: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class, (2) the plaintiff was qualified for … Cons.Stat. § 8542 (enumerating exceptions to governmental immunity); Regester v.

Davis v. United States Postal Service

675 F. Supp. 225 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1987

If no postal applicants were qualified for the position, the Postal Service would have gone to external recruitment to secure qualified applicants including qualified handicapped. … As the court stated: The quoted regulation clearly refers to making the particular job, not another job for which the handicapped person was not hired, accessible to handicapped persons.

Crisis Center North, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Pennsylvania Department of Human Services

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2026

In its brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss, CCN does not clearly dispute that DHS is only named as a defendant to Count I. (See Doc. 37, pp. 1– 22.) … and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. 1 Pa.

United States v. Wilkes

368 F. Supp. 2d 366 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2005

A plea colloquy was set for the date previously established for trial, and trial was continued until June 6, 2005. … Unlike the protection afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause [or doctrines of immunity], the Speedy Trial [Act] does not, either on its face or according to the decisions of [federal courts], encompass a ‘right not to be

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.

MUNICIPAL REVENUE SERVICE, INC. v. Xspand, Inc.

700 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2010

However, this does not conclusively establish MRS’ right to relief, as MRS must also establish causation. … Herron's testimony regarding the falsity of Xspand's statements is clearly relevant to the proper resolution of the pending motions. 20 .

Hill v. South Eastern School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 17, 2024

, whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … Absent a plausible averment, Fake would be entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Kline

354 F. Supp. 931 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1972

United States, 12 Kline realized that he might qualify and thereafter applied for the exemption. … This is clearly consistent with the concern that alleged late crystallizers have a full evaluation of the merits of their claims prior to assignment to combatant training and service. Ehlert v.

Carvalho v. Bledsoe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2019

Finally, Defendants maintain that, at the very least, they are entitled to qualified immunity because Carvalho’s constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time they were violated. … Qualified Immunity Lastly, Defendants contend that, even if they violated Carvalho’s rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity because any such right was not clearly

DeWalt v. Barger

490 F. Supp. 1262 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 1980

Several trial dates were established only to be continued for various and sundry reasons. The trial was ultimately commenced on October 29, 1979. … Plaintiff has failed to establish that he has been deprived of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” It follows, therefore, that plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 must be denied. 6.

Farr v. Chesney

437 F. Supp. 521 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1977

Certainly a constitutional right can be so clearly established that it is unreasonable for a Defendant to rely upon contrary advice from legal counsel. MacMurray v. … Whether or not Farr had a valid contract with the Juniata Valley Office beyond June 30,1976 and thus was entitled to the safeguards of due process was not a clearly established constitutional right.

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

Johnson v. Duffy

855 F. Supp. 2d 311 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2012

There’s no science in my knowledge that establishes a causal relationship between trauma and *314 fibromyalgia. … Dhaduk clearly possesses the requisite specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training and education to qualify as an expert under Rule 702. The opinion and testimony of Dr. Dhaduk should not be precluded.

McDonald v. United States

555 F. Supp. 935 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1983

However, under the terms of the final pretrial order entered by the Multidistrict court, Plaintiffs who can establish that they contracted Guillain-Barre Syndrome after receipt of the swine flu vaccine need not establish … Bolubasz, supra, clearly has a significant impact on the amount of damages that plaintiff is entitled to claim ....

Hunters United for Sunday Hunting v. Pennsylvania Game Commission

28 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2014

At the pleadings stage, it is the plaintiffs’ burden to establish standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). … Although general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, the complaint must still clearly and specifically set forth facts sufficient to' satisfy Article III’s standing requirement

Owner Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Pa. Tpk. Comm'n

383 F. Supp. 3d 353 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2019

Secretary of Transportation to make federal funds available for certain limited types of state-tolled facilities," while Section 1012(a)(3) "established conditions that States were required to satisfy in order to qualify … In Cohen , after qualifying its use of Evansville , the district court ultimately concluded that under Evansville , the discount toll program did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Id. at 450 .