Case law

United States v. City of Pittsburgh

589 F. Supp. 179 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 1984

The interest of the City of Pittsburgh in administering its own tax laws quite possibly qualifies as an “important state interest” when the only other interest to be considered is a private one. … Finally, the fees collected by each reporter for providing requested transcripts are established by the appointing Court, subject to the approval of the Judicial Conference, 28 U.S.C. § 753 (f).

MATTHIE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2026

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … > So whether Goodman is protected by qualified immunity turns on whether Matthie has plausibly alleged that Goodman violated that clearly established right. He has not.

Story v. Kindt

957 F. Supp. 716 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 1997

More specifically, Keeney did not require a party in a habeas proceeding to establish cause and prejudice in order to establish that material facts were not developed in the state court.” Burden v. … On remand, the Court of Appeals expressly found that the mention of immunity was not entitled to a presumption of correctness for the reasons noted. 4 .

O'HARA v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania

171 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2001

O’Hara although she was qualified and ranked as one of the top three candidates for the vacant positions, and revision of the job description to exclude her from further consideration, Plaintiff claims that the Uni *494 versity … [the University] is included in the sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth.” Id. at 1334-35 .

TATEL v. MT. LEBANON SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2023

The district court in Clark granted qualified immunity on the basis that no established law was violated, and therefore, the inmate’s right was not clearly established. … Second prong - clearly established The court now turns to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

PETERSON v. HARRY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2025

In support thereof, Magistrate Judge Pesto reasoned: Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 5–6 (2021): “Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Means v. Maharowski

602 F. Supp. 71 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1985

, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” … Our inquiry must focus on the second element, whether the plaintiff’s complaint established a violation of some right, privilege or immunity guaranteed under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Robinson v. Magovern

83 F.R.D. 79 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1979

The Court notes that besides the confidentiality provisions, the Pennsylvania statute grants immunity to participants of the peer review procedure. 63 P.S. § 425.3 provides: “Immunity from liability (a) Notwithstanding any … Our opinion does not affect the immunity granted by the statute.

BAILEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2026

qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates the clearly established statutory or Constitutional rights of a plaintiff. Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 325-26 (3d Cir. 2009).

Mitchell v. Miller

884 F. Supp. 2d 334 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2012

Congress has clearly expressed its intention to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in actions arising under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12202 . … a waiver of Pennsylvania’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

United States v. Meyers

432 F. Supp. 456 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 1977

Clearly, this paragraph charges, as part of a federal crime, that Mazzei would act in a certain way in his legislative capacity with respect to certain types of legislation. … Even if the immunity may be abused by faithless public servants, its maintenance is essential to protection of the welfare of the people. 6 Supreme Court cases show that the immunity is to be construed broadly, so as to effect

Aungst v. JC Penney Co., Inc.

456 F. Supp. 370 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1978

as comparably qualified men; (d) In failing and refusing to provide women employees with fringe benefits on the same terms and conditions as such fringe benefits are made available to comparably qualified men employees; ( … MOTION FOR CLASS ACTION DETERMINATION Aungst has the burden of establishing, with specific factual allegations, that she meets the stringent requisites for class certification. Wetzel v.

FRNDAK v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

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

immunity, the first prong being whether the facts, as viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show the violation of a legal right, and the second being whether that right was clearly established. . . . … [T]he party asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity bears the burden of persuasion on both prongs at summary judgment.” Mack v.

MOFFITT v. BRITTON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2023

A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v. … “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” City & Cty. of San Francisco v.

United States v. Renfroe

634 F. Supp. 1536 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 1986

for which you may use the matter of immunity. … The cases cited by the respondent as examples of appropriate recusal situations clearly are not apposite. In re Dellinger, 461 F.2d 389 (7th Cir.1972); Mayberry v.

Wagner v. Township of Harmar

651 F. Supp. 1286 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1987

Showing that the zoning ordinance was not strictly enforced four years before plaintiff applied for a building permit, without more, does not establish a deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities, which must be shown … Discriminatory purpose is not presumed; intentional discrimination must be clearly shown. Wilson v. Schillinger, 761 F.2d 921, 929 (3d Cir.1985); Snowden v.

CORSON v. CLEARFIELD COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Zaloga v. … rights were clearly established.

NAHAS v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2025

Nahas responds that the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. McCoy’s right to be free from a state-created danger was clearly established at the time of her death. … of liability, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Baker

189 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 1960

Testimony before Congress; immunity.’ and inserting in lieu thereof the following: “ ‘3486. Compelled testimony tending to incriminate witness; immunity.’ “Approved August 20,1954.” … Testimony before Congress; immunity “No testimony given by a witness before either House, or before any committee of either House, or before any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses

NOEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ attempt to invoke qualified immunity also fails. … “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