Case law

Haagensen v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

651 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2009

immunity; 7) her individual capacity claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity as to all Defendants; 8) her request for injunctive relief against the Judicial Defendants is barred by the terms of § 1983, as … Absolute Judicial Immunity The Judicial Defendants argue that they are immune from any damages claims based on the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity.

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

Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh

56 F.R.D. 435 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1972

Clearly there are questions of law or fact common to the class. … This prerequisite demands that the representing attorney be qualified, experienced and able, and that the action will be vigorously and uncompromisingly prosecuted. Katz v.

Paslowski v. Standard Mortg. Corp. of Georgia

129 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2000

For Merrill purposes, Freddie Mac clearly is “governmental.” … “[T]he servicers establish, maintain, compute, collect, adjust and disburse the escrow.

SIMONDS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2026

Officials receive qualified immunity unless: (1) the plaintiff has pled a constitutional violation; and (2) the constitutional right must have been clearly established. Mirabella v. … Boyer only asserts that, as to qualified immunity, the First Amendment right at issue was not clearly established. ECF 188 at 7–9; ECF 210 at 8–11. So the Court accepts 3 When Ms.

EVANS v. DOE 1

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2024

Accordingly, absolute or qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leveto v. … Qualified immunity shields "government officials performing discretionary functions...from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Hartnett v. Stern

670 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1987

Plaintiff must of course establish an underlying property or liberty interest to support a constitutional right to procedural due process. … Defendants also raise qualified immunity on summary judgment but because of our resolution of other issues, we need not address it. .

Drusky v. Judges of Supreme Court

324 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1971

Although the common law doctrine of official immunity may not enjoy recognition to its fullest extent in a suit under the Civil Rights Statutes, it is recognized that the immunity enjoyed by members of the judiciary has not … Under the doctrine, a member of the judiciary is afforded immunity from liability under the Civil Rights Statutes for all acts which are not clearly outside his jurisdiction. Bauers v. Heisel, supra, 361 F.2d p. 590.

BALCOM v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … qualified immunity."

McKIVITZ v. Township of Stowe

769 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2010

Quasi-Judicial Immunity The Board argues that it enjoys absolute immunity from the Plaintiffs’ claims because of its quasi-judicial functions. ECF No. 41-1 at 19-21. … The present case is clearly distinguishable from City of Cleburne .

Greenfield v. Vesella

457 F. Supp. 316 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1978

It is well established that, although a state is not a named party to the action, a suit may be barred by the Eleventh Amendment if the judgment against state officials will be paid out of state funds. West v. … Our reading of Mayle , however, leads to the conclusion that the Commonwealth has clearly and expressly waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and consented to suit in federal court.

Morgan v. Sharon Pennsylvania Board of Education

445 F. Supp. 142 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1978

However, it is well established that a School Board is not a person within the meaning of Section 1983. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961); Kenosha v. … Secondly, the reason for qualified immunity was to protect school board members and administrators who were acting lawfully in their positions. The individual board members are laymen and serve without pay.

Benedict v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Human Services, Inc.

98 F. Supp. 3d 809 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2015

Mediate is entitled to qualified immunity, (2) Westmoreland County cannot be held liable and (3) supervisory liability is not established. See Kaucher v. … As noted above, because the Court concludes there has been no constitutional violation, it need not reach the arguments pertaining to qualified immunity, municipal liability, or supervisory liability.

Coxson v. Pennsylvania

935 F. Supp. 624 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 1996

In light of these well established principles, we find that Plaintiffs claims against the Commonwealth are so clearly foreclosed as not to present any viable federal controversy. … Pennsylvania law clearly recognizes Polk as a state institution, maintained in whole and supervised by the state.

Rulli v. United States

581 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1984

The plaintiff in Griffin did not challenge the government’s decision to approve a live-virus immunization program nor did he challenge the regulation which established the standard against which the vaccine would be measured … Once a facility is commissioned, the owner “of the facility must establish an adequate maintenance system and provide qualified maintenance personnel to maintain the facility at the level attained at the time it was commissioned

DETSCHELT v. NORWIN SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2024

A federal right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. … Taylor’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is premature.

EVANS v. DOE 1

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Otherwise, "in most cases, a plaintiff must show that a right is clearly established because 'the violative nature of [the] particular conduct [was] clearly established.'" James, 957 F.3d at 169 (quoting Ziglar v.

PG Publishing Co. v. Aichele

902 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2012

(e) When the hour for closing the polls shall arrive, all qualified electors who have already qualified, and are inside the enclosed space, shall be permitted to vote; and, in addition thereto, all those qualified electors … The record does not clearly establish PG’s status as a “state-court loser.” Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284 , 125 S.Ct. 1517 .

TRENT v. COUNTY OF SOMERSET

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendant Walker argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs allegations do not demonstrate that his actions violated a clearly established federal right. … Defendant Walker focuses on the second prong of the qualified immunity test and argues Plaintiff has failed to establish Defendant Walker’s actions violated Plaintiff's clearly established federal rights.

International Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers v. United Contractors Ass'n

331 F. Supp. 1298 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1971

Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 , 79 S.Ct. 773 , 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959), as having established, “ * * * the general principle that the National Labor Relations Act preempts state and federal court jurisdiction to remedy conduct that is … The instant factual allegations, bared of plaintiffs’ legal descriptions, clearly depict conduct which is arguably within the proscriptions of § 8(a) (2) of the National Labor Relations Act which makes it an unfair labor