Case law

Amnesty America v. County of Allegheny

822 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1993

The Court rejected the argument that opposition to abortion, as well as race discrimination, qualifies as an “otherwise class-based invidiously discriminatory animus.” Bray , - U.S. at ---, 113 S.Ct. at 759 . … As noted above, these Jane Doe plaintiffs must establish a constitutional violation by employees of defendant County or by employees of defendant City to establish a claim against the supervisory defendants, the municipal

Minutello v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

964 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2013

The factual circumstances surrounding Hartford’s conflict of interest clearly fall into the latter category. … Normally our immune system produces proteins called antibodies that protect the body from these invaders.

Peoples Cab Co. v. Bloom

330 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 1971

, the allegations of the Amended Complaint fail to establish either that the conduct of defendant was exercised under color of law, or that his conduct subjected plaintiffs to deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution … They seem to emphasize that this object was accomplished by defendant solely by misusing the title and influence of his state created office by the aforesaid means which were performed “clearly outside the authority or jurisdiction

HELMANTOLER

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

Lenzi’s actions were clearly outrageous enough to establish a claim for IIED. (Id.). … erroneously recommended the denial of qualified immunity for Officer Stallings and Lt.

DUMAS v. ALMUSAWI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2024

Defendants did not violate any clearly established rights. The second qualified-immunity prong asks whether the relevant right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Because the relevant rights were not clearly established at the time, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. II.

MCGILL v. HICKS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2023

There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established. … Thus, because Plaintiff has pleaded the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Hicks based on qualified immunity. C.

Goodson v. Maggi

797 F. Supp. 2d 604 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2011

Judicial immunity will not apply only if the judge acts with “clearly no jurisdiction over the subject matter,” id. at 356 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. 1099 (quoting Bradley v. … Clearly, Plaintiffs claims for monetary damages against Judge Walker are barred by judicial immunity.

United States v. Monroe

158 F. Supp. 3d 385 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2016

This anomalous result is one that Congress clearly never anticipated or intended. McDaniels, 147 F.Supp.3d at 432 , 2015 WL 7455539, at *4 . … The Court found that Hobbs Act robbery “clearly qualifies as a crime of violence under the Force Clause of § 924(c)(3)(A) because the definition of Hobbs Act robbery tracks the definition of common-law robbery, which reflects

WILEY v. UNION POLICE OFFICER "PETRO"

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 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 a … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the Court must conduct a two-part inquiry, considering (1) whether Officer Petroff violated a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established.

Zezulewicz v. Port Authority of Allegheny County

290 F. Supp. 2d 583 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2003

However, the EEOC charge underlying this action does complain of retaliatory discharge, and, albeit less clearly, also raises the issue of constructive discharge. … A prima facie case is established where the plaintiff (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) is qualified for a position, and (3) suffers an adverse employment decision, and (4) that others outside of the protected class

In Re Grand Jury Investigation

436 F. Supp. 818 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1977

In Matter of Grand Jury Empaneled January 21, 1975, supra, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, speaking through Judge Aldisert, established guidelines for the determination of the point in time when a potential conflict of … These circumstances fall clearly within the proscriptions enunciated by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

SHICK v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2019

The Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “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

Helbling v. Pebbles

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that Count I fails as to Pebbles because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court finds that this right was clearly established as of the date of taking in this case.

Basile v. Township of Smith

752 F. Supp. 2d 643 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2010

The DiBella court specifically stated that neither it nor any court in the circuit was bound by Graw, and that merely having to appear in court to answer charges does not qualify as a Fourth Amendment seizure. 407 F.3d at … The Supreme Court has clearly established that official capacity suits, i.e., suits against municipal officials in their official capacity, should be treated as suits against the municipality. See Hafer v.

EXPRESS SERVICES, INC. v. DBEC WHOLESALE CO., LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2023

in the staffing agreement do not clearly evidence an intent to waive that immunity … This is further support that the parties never clearly intended for DBEC to waive its workers’ compensation immunity.

MADER v. UNION TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2021

“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 person would have … Absent applicable precedent, only a “robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority” in courts of appeal could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity. Sivella, 2021 U.S. App.

Rumfola v. Murovich

812 F. Supp. 569 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1992

But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427 , 96 S.Ct. at 993 . . … The immunity of a police officer is qualified, not absolute, and the interplay of case-specific facts impacts on the applicability of immunity in each case. See Pierson v.

United States v. Hougland Barge Line, Inc.

387 F. Supp. 1110 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1974

In re-affirming the objective contemplated by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Congress continued, “without a clearly set goal of natural water quality achieved through application of a no-discharge policy, it is not likely … A more restrictive interpretation would frustrate congressional purpose by exempting from the operation of the Act a large class of persons who are uniquely qualified to assume the burden imposed by it.

SMITH v. BIALIK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2020

Qualified Immunity Lastly, Defendant states that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because “the averments, as they now stand, entitle Officer Bialik to qualified immunity.” (ECF No. 24, at 5.) … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

QUISENBERRY v. RIDGE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2022

Ridge argues that the claims should then be dismissed because he “is entitled to qualified immunity.” ECF 23, p. 6. … Ridge may develop the record as he sees fit through discovery and then can raise his qualified-immunity defense at a later stage. Mr.