Case law

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

BUCHANAN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2025

“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 … “Even if none exists, it may be possible that a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ in the Court[s] of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.” Mammaro v.

HARR v. WASHINGTON AREA HUMANE SOCIETY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2024

Because the Amended Complaint does not show that Davis’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.

Federal Trade Commission v. Equitable Resources, Inc.

512 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2007

This Court grants the Motion to Dismiss (doc no. 18) 2 because the PUC’s approval of the transaction qualifies for state action immunity. See California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v. … Chief Judge Scirica of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained the state action immunity as follows: To qualify as state action under the Midcal test, “the challenged restraint must be one ‘clearly

Putaro v. Carlynton School District

615 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2009

A reasonable jury could readily conclude that the decision-making rationale articulated by Defendants was pretextual. 4 Panza is not entitled to qualified immunity. … The law has been clearly established for a lengthy period of time that school officials may not retaliate against the filing of a grievance and no reasonable person in Panza’s position could believe that retaliating against

MOLINA v. LITTLE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2024

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … All told, the law in this area cuts both ways and fails to clearly establish the right at issue here for purposes of qualified immunity, especially since no Supreme Court cases discuss this topic.

Flick v. United States Through Farmers Home Admin.

47 B.R. 440 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1985

Thus, by clear implication, the court found no sovereign immunity. … We note for the benefit of the parties that the findings of fact of the able bankruptcy judge on remand are reversible only if “clearly erroneous.” Rule of Bankr.Proc. 8013.

Smetanka v. Borough of Ambridge, Pennsylvania

378 F. Supp. 1366 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1974

, 10 the defendant Councilmen at least have a qualified immunity from damage suits under § 1983 when it is found, as here, they acted in good faith. … immunity and are not liable in damages or for counsel fees.

Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh

375 F. Supp. 1119 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 1974

Judging by the indicia before the Court, the state colleges would clearly seem to constitute state instrumentalities as that term is meant in a Section 1983 context and thus immune from suit under the statute. 5 Penn State … Kline, supra, has conclusively established that a non-private university has the qualified right to differentiate between resident and non-resident students for tuition purposes.

RHJ Medical Center, Inc. v. City of DuBois

754 F. Supp. 2d 723 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2010

For decades, granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings was only appropriate where the movant “clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter … The new ordinance as well as § 621 clearly appear to be legislative acts.

DETSCHELT v. NORWIN SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2025

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 still premature at this juncture.

STEWART

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2026

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … On a motion under Rule i12(b)(6), qualified immunity will be upheld “only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas v. Indep.

MILEHAM v. BOROUGH OF BRIDGEWATER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2023

Qualified immunity shields government officials, including police officers, from liability for civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether “the [constitutional] right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v.

United States v. Bowers

517 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1981

Terms and Conditions The evidence establishes that the United States desired the cooperation of defendant in the investigation of others in alleged criminal conduct. … The decision to grant immunity to certain persons and prosecute others is clearly within the prerogative of the executive branch of government.

Allison v. Mennonite Publications Board

123 F. Supp. 23 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 1954

The crucial question for determination, in the present motion, is whether defendant is a “charity” within the meaning of the rule of charitable immunity. … The defendant is a non-profit corporation, incorporated March 31, 1908 under the laws of the State of Indiana and duly registered and qualified to engage in business in Pennsylvania as a foreign non-profit corporation.

RITTACCO v. ZELECHOWSKI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2024

by qualified immunity.” … Whether Zelechowski Violated a Clearly Established Right Continuing with prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court “must determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at

Three Rivers Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh

502 F. Supp. 1118 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1980

Legislative Immunity The municipal defendants next assert absolute legislative immunity. … Here the plaintiffs apparently qualify, since the complaint alleges that Three Rivers is incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania and that Matthew Moore is a taxpaying resident thereof. 18 .

LUCAS v. SPUSTA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2025

: “(1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established at the time of the official's conduct.” … Taking the Complaint at face value, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the violation of a Fourth Amendment right that was clearly established at the time of the incident in question. See, e.g., Round v.

MOFFITT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2025

Third, Britton states that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Jd. Moffitt in his Reply (ECF No. 70) addresses each of the raised issues. … Whether Britton is protected by Qualified Immunity or whether he violated a clearly established constitutional right.

McDonald v. Pennsylvania State Police

786 F. Supp. 2d 871 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2011

Defendant further contends that Gallaher is entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs argument on the Section 1983 claim is very limited and does not discuss the evidentiary record. … Plaintiff has not identified any “clearly established” right to additional process. In accordance with Wilson, MPOETC’s process was appropriate.