Case law

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

Travelers Insurance v. Blue Cross

306 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1969

It having been determined on defendant Blue Cross' previous Motion for Summary Judgment that it is not immune as a state agency from the provisions of the Federal Anti-Trust Laws, Blue Cross has filed a second Motion for … That all insurance industry acts of boycott, coercion, or intimidation condemned by the Sherman Act are subject to federal law is also clearly established in Monarch Life Insurance Company v.

Burkhart v. Knepper

310 F. Supp. 2d 734 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2004

However, since the custom was not employed the evening of Fyock’s death, no causal connection is established between the custom and Fyock’s death. … The Court first recognizes the well-established rule that governmental immunity found under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Torts Claim Act is only applicable to state law claims and not federal civil rights actions

SCHUTZEUS v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2020

And all of the probation officers here enjoy qualified immunity, since Mr. Schutzeus can point to no constitutional right or “clearly established” federal right that they violated. … See Delie, 257 F.3d at 319 (holding that “state statute cannot ‘clearly establish’ [a] federal right for qualified immunity purposes,” unless that state statute creates a federally protected property interest

HARR v. WASHINGTON AREA HUMANE SOCIETY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 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. … Because the Amended Complaint does not show that these Defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is premature.

United States v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.

278 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1967

Judicial authority establishes that Backner is properly indicted for his continued participation in the crime charged herein subsequent to his Federal Trade Commission testimony. … for such immunized period.

DiNicola v. DiPaolo

25 F. Supp. 2d 630 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1998

DiPaolo and Gunter likewise claim that they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … In the alternative, the Court concludes that DiPaolo and Gunter are entitled to qualified immunity for their conduct.

Welch v. Board of Directors of Wildwood Golf Club

877 F. Supp. 955 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1995

Although the Supreme Court has reserved the question of whether women in general qualify as a protected class under section 1985(3), 3 the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has expressly stated that the “wording of § … Accordingly, as Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendants acted under color of state law, their claims brought under § 1983 will be dismissed. IV.

United States v. Carducci

557 F. Supp. 531 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 1983

To establish a Sixth Amendment violation necessitating a new trial, the court required defendant to prove “that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” … Immunity is to be employed only where the testimony to be given is clearly exculpatory. The testimony which Carducci now offers is equivocal at best.

United States v. Lena

670 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1987

Notwithstanding counsel’s failure to request a cautionary instruction relative to immunized witnesses, the jurors were clearly made aware of the fact that Desmone and Williams were granted immunity. … In fact, it can be argued that such an instruction would have been harmful to the defendant since by emphasizing the fact of witness immunity, the jury could be led to believe inferentially that an immunized witness would

Schlarp v. Dern

610 F. Supp. 2d 450 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2009

to qualified immunity if Schlarp had been able to establish a constitutional violation. … The situation would be entirely different if the court had concluded that a constitutional violation could be established, but that Dern and Taylor were nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity.

GAJAROV v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES

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

The qualified immunity analysis is thus two-pronged: (1) whether the plaintiff alleged the deprivation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. … The Court concludes that the right asserted here was not, for qualified immunity purposes, clearly established based on the facts pled. Mr. Cherna and Ms.

DEWALT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2025

F, Qualified Immunity 11 In their motion, the Erie Defendants argue that the claims against them are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity; however, in their brief, … Second, the right at issue must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

United States v. Nolan

523 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1981

The first theory was established in United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223 (3rd Cir. 1981). … Smith, supra, the Court articulated the preconditions to granting immunity as: 1) immunity must be properly sought; 2) the defense witness must be available; 3) the proffered testimony must be clearly exculpatory; 4) the

BOOKER v. BOROUGH OF NORTH BRADDOCK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2021

immunity as to such conduct, i.e., whether his actions violated clearly established constitutional rights. … In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, courts analyze “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of

Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Trump

1 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1998

The burden is on the complaining party to establish that the publication being challenged is defamatory. If the court concludes that the publication is not capable of defamatory meaning, the case will be dismissed. … What constitutes a legislative proceeding, however, is not clearly defined.

LEWIS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2026

Qualified immunity Holman alternatively argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on each of Lewis’s claims. … Qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit unless he “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Thomas v.

Eastern Books v. Bagnoni

446 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1978

The City Council hereby declares such activities to be a public nuisance, and herein establishes procedures for the abatement thereof. … This ordinance shall apply to existing establishments which are presently engaged in the type of activity herein declared to be a public nuisance.”

MORRIS v. SCHEUER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2023

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 which … Appx. 52, 55— 57 (2d Cir. 2015) (citations omitted) (“District court erred in agreeing that Defendants “we[re] entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law permitting inmates to wear ‘head

DZURICKY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2025

Bradley argues that Dzuricky’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred by qualified immunity.° See ECF No. 17, generally. … ] right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [the] defendant's alleged misconduct.”