Case law

DILLEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2026

Because the Complaint does not show that Officer Dilley’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is premature. … violate a clearly established constitutional right” and therefore “dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature” (citing Thomas, 463 F.3d at 291)); see also Newland v.

Stubbs Ex Rel. Goolsby v. Kline

463 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1978

In the alternative, the officers of the Commonwealth assert a qualified immunity as a defense. … The individual officers urge, however, that the defense of “qualified immunity” bars the instant action. We disagree.

Story v. Mechling

412 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2006

Assuming, without deciding that these actions qualify as adverse, the Court finds and rules that Plaintiff has demonstrated the second prong necessary to maintain his retaliation claim. … SCI-Waynesburg is clearly a component of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, which is an administrative department of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. See 71 Pa.

DeLong v. Brumbaugh

703 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1989

that JoAnn DeLong was also “otherwise qualified” to serve as a juror, if she had been selected to serve by the parties. … Schramm, 772 F.2d 1114, 1118-1119 (3d Cir.1985), nor the doctrine of judicial immunity. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 , 104 S.Ct. 1970 , 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1983).

Northwestern School District v. Pittenger

397 F. Supp. 975 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 1975

The language of the statute in question clearly states the requirements which a school district must meet in order to qualify for “modified sparsity payments”. As stated by the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. … If Northwestern School District had qualified for “modified sparsity payments”, it would have received $288,559.40 for the 1974-75 fiscal year under the formula contained in 24 P.S. § 25-2501(17). *982 The burden of establishing

Jimenez v. Lakelands Racing Ass'n, Inc.

567 F. Supp. 1298 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1983

Moreover, the doctrine of immunity, qualified or absolute, has been held to be a product of judicial determination in the civil rights context and involves the balancing of the need to assure the unfettered fulfillment of … Moreover, to enjoy a qualified immunity, an official must demonstrate that a) he acted in good faith and b) that the acts taken are not a clear violation of the person’s rights. Moss v.

Obenchain Corp. v. Corp. Nacionale De Inversiones

656 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1987

The court identified 5 pertinent questions: 1) Does the conduct the action is based upon or related to qualify as “commercial activity”? … However, defendants have been unable to establish this premise with the evidence presented and since foreign states bear the burden of establishing immunity we cannot deny jurisdiction on this ground. E.g.

Williams v. Price

25 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1998

Schoemehl, 878 F.2d 1043 (8th Cir.1989), the court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity as to the plaintiffs’ claim that they were required to meet … The court stated: Assuming that the inmates have alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right of access to the courts, no record evidence establishes that any of the named defendants were personally involved

Palmer v. Penn-Ohio Road Materials, Inc.

462 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1978

Under Pennsylvania law, a legislative enactment will not be construed to affect pre-existing substantive rights unless the legislature clearly expresses its intention to do so. Misitis v. … The court reasoned: Prior to the effective date of the Act, a plaintiff was required to be free of any personal fault contributing to his injury in order to establish liability in a civil action for negligence. . . .

Pozza v. United States

324 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2004

Accordingly, the statutory employer is immune from tort suits in the same manner as the actual employer. Allen, 706 F.Supp. at 16 . Here, the United States argues that it enjoys immunity as Ms. … of the McDonald test strictly and find statutory employer status only when the facts clearly warrant it.”

BASTIN TRUCK PARTS AND SERVICE v. EAST DEER TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2025

Because the TAC does not show that the Officer Defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is premature. … violate a clearly established constitutional right” and therefore “dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature” (citing Thomas, 463 F.3d at 291)); see also Newland v.

MACK v. YOST

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2021

plaintiff's right to religiously compelled meals was clearly established and denying qualified immunity. … When considering qualified immunity, “[t]he dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”

Giannuzzi v. Doninger Metal Products

585 F. Supp. 1306 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 16, 1984

. *1308 The Federal Tort Claims Act modified the long-established principle, inherited from the law of England, that the government is immune from civil liability. United States v. … The Act establishes a procedure whereby employers contribute to a fund that reimburses employees for job-related injuries.

Rolick v. Collins Pine Co.

708 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1989

When a contractor qualifies for the responsibilities and immunities under the Act, it is described as a “statutory employer.” In McDonald v. … Although the amount of control is clearly the primary consideration in deter *115 mining a worker’s status, Pennsylvania courts also consider other factors.

Arneault v. O'Toole

864 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2012

The BIE Defendants argue that these alleged acts of retaliation are protected either by quasi-judicial immunity or qualified immunity. … any right of Rubino’s that was clearly established.

DeMoss v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

586 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1984

He also claims that, after Metropolitan decided no longer to reimburse his clients for psychological services, the clients terminated their visits out of concern that plaintiff was not qualified to offer psychological treatment … plaintiff must read the statute as follows: “There shall be no liability on the part of and no cause of action of any nature shall arise against ... any insurer ... furnishing to the insurer any information____” This is clearly

KOLAT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2026

Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions at this stage of the litigation because Plaintiff’s claims do not establish the violation of any clearly established rights. … violate a clearly established constitutional right” and therefore “dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature” (citing Thomas, 463 F.3d at 291)); see also Newland v.

Barris v. United States

851 F. Supp. 696 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 1994

The doctrine of sovereign immunity serves as a bar to suit against the United States unless the government has explicitly waived sovereign immunity. United Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 985 F.2d 1320 (6th Cir.1993). … The statutory language clearly allows jurisdiction on the basis of the facts alleged by plaintiff.

Hsing v. Usery

419 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1976

Morton, supra. 18 We thus hold that plaintiff’s action based on the APA is not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … One such standard is whether, based upon the facts in the administrative record, it can be said that the defendant’s decision was, “. . . made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies

CARNEVALE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2026

City of Philadelphia, the Third Circuit again addressed whether the Fourteenth Amendment right against the use of fabricated evidence had been clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity. 19 F … Relying on Halsey, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, finding that the right had been clearly established when the alleged violation occurred in 1992.