Case law

Van Tassel v. Lawrence County Domestic Relations Section

659 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2009

established by that statute. … "Overdue support” is defined as "[s]upport which is delinquent under a payment schedule established by the court.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 4302.

JENNIFER B. v. TRAFFORD BOROUGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2020

Lastly, the Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff Sanchez’s claim of unconstitutional retaliation (Count III) based on qualified immunity. … clearly established or they were plainly incompetent.

MUCY v. NAGY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2021

immunity because this right was not clearly established at the time of the investigation.” … Nevertheless, the court ultimately concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time the events occurred.

United States v. Ciamacco

362 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1973

The use of the disjunctive in subparagraph (b)(1) (iii) of § 1955 17 clearly shows that 30 days of substantially continuous operation is an alternate and independent ground which establishes an illegal gambling business, … At trial Samuel Levine testified as an immunized witness concerning the nature and extent of the gambling business involved in this case.

SINGLER v. CATERINO

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

“A court presented with a claim of qualified immunity must examine both the law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and the facts available to the official at that time, and must then determine … “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 S.F. v.

BURTON v. ZIEGLER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2024

The constitutional right to be free from a reckless investigation was not clearly established in May 2017, the relevant time, as required to overcome qualified immunity. Harvard v. … 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 statutory or

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

DESABETINO v. BIAGINI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2020

For Officer Biagini not to be entitled to qualified immunity, he would have had to violate clearly established law. See Saucier v. … Thus, Officer Biagini’s actions did not violate clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. Br. (ECF No. 112) at ¶¶ f, g.

Ford v. Johnson

899 F. Supp. 227 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1995

immunity ...” … As previously stated, Ford “concedes that no set of facts can be alleged to establish pendant [sic] state law claims against the agency defendants under these statutes because of the bar of government immunity ...”

Teleprompter of Erie, Inc. v. City of Erie

537 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1981

Defendants also contend, in the alternative, that Councilman Meredith is immune from suit in his individual capacity and that the City of Erie is immune under the doctrine of legislative immunity. … immunity is an affirmative defense and improper at this stage of the proceeding. 502 F.Supp. at 1136, n. 20 .

Linger v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

158 F. Supp. 900 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 1958

The Ewalt case however is authority for the proposition that the Commission may be sued upon a clearly authorized cause of action. … It is not by that fact alone rendered immune from suit since “the government does not be *902 come the conduit of its immunity in suits against its agents or instrumentalities merely because they do its work.” Mr.

Zurchin v. Ambridge Area Sch. Dist.

300 F. Supp. 3d 681 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2018

Count VI- 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3) As to Count VI, Defendants Keber, Kowal, Locher, and Mealie argue that Plaintiff's claim fails because her allegations are conclusory, they are entitled to qualified immunity, and they are agents … Rather, Plaintiff clearly avers that the alleged conspiracy was based upon a violation of Title VII. ( See id. ).

Davila v. United States

247 F. Supp. 3d 650 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2017

understood that his or her action amounted to a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … "The dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’ ” Id.

SANDERS v. MULLANEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2024

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 … “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.”

Cindrich v. Fisher

512 F. Supp. 2d 396 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2007

IMMUNITY The first issue raised by Defendants is immunity. (Docket No. 40, p. 5). … Rather it is clearly a forceful separation. Id.

WILEY v. UNION POLICE OFFICER "PETRO"

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2024

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the Court must conduct a two-part inquiry, considering (1) whether McCutcheon violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established … McCutcheon has the burden of establishing his entitlement to qualified immunity. See Peroza-Benitez v. Smith, 994 F.3d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 2021).

GUEST v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2020

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “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.”

GUEST v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY

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

“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. … Manuel are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that their actions in connection with the removal of the children were unconstitutional. With respect to Ms.

DRUMM v. BEAVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2024

Even assuming Plaintiff clears the hurdles above, he also must contend with Defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity. … established . . .

JUVENILE 'VR' v. MUNICIPALITY OF BETHEL PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT

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

established federal right, therefore Detective Dixon is entitled to qualified immunity in her individual capacity. … Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of