Case law

DOE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2022

Qualified Immunity Dr. Kim Swindell and P.A. Burk also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly

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

Pelkoffer v. Deer

144 B.R. 282 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1992

The defendant director argued that he was protected by qualified immunity because the suit was actually asserted against him individually. See Brandon v. … immunity.”

Bowles v. Pechersky

64 F. Supp. 641 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1946

Office of Price Administration establishing or relating to maximum retail prices for groceries. 3. … The plaintiff is the duly appointed and qualified Administrator of the Office of Price Administration. 2.

JUMBA BAKER v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2025

was not clearly established. … Discovery may cast a new light on the qualified immunity analysis and whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established.

United States v. 38 Cases

35 F.R.D. 357 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 1964

It also appears that the claimant is now negotiating with Norwich Pharmaeal Company for the purpose of establishing Norwich as the sole United States distributor of the product'. … is qualified.

United States v. Nolan

540 F. Supp. 234 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1982

In Smith , the Court of Appeals articulated five factors to consider before granting judicial use immunity: 1) immunity must be properly sought; 2) the witness must be available; 3) the proffered testimony must be clearly … In considering a more limited immunity the Court needed to examine whether any of the proposed testimony was essential and clearly exculpatory as required by Smith, supra and Herman, supra.

BEY v. KRAUS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2024

Harper and the Sheriff’s Office Defendants in their individual capacities are barred by qualified immunity. … To defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional right and that the constitutional right was clearly establish at the time of the violation. Spady v. Bethlehem Area Sch.

Vendetti v. Schuster

242 F. Supp. 746 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 1965

The fact that the defendant in this case was an officer of the United States or an agency thereof, or a person acting under him, in an act done under color of office, was clearly and definitely established on the State Court … The defendant submitted his complete, immunity defense to the State Court. Judge Laub in his opinion recognized the immunity doctrine as set forth in Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579 (2nd Cir. 1949), and Barr v.

ROTEN v. KLEMM

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final argument, in the alternative, is that they are entitled to qualified immunity over Roten’s requests for individualized religious … “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 person

United States v. Kenstler

250 F. Supp. 833 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 1966

We emphasize that there is no constitutional right to exemption or immunity from the burden of national defense. … The evidence in the record clearly shows that defendant is not a full-time minister entitled to exemption but is an auto mechanic. The record amply sustains the Appeal Board’s classification of I-O.

ARMSTRONG v. FURMAN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2020

Thus, Dupont has qualified immunity on the instant the failure-to-intervene claim.® * This Court is entitled to address the defense of qualified immunity swa sponte when appropriate. See Doe v. … The Court notes that Defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity in their Answer. ECF No. 4 at 6.

Wigton v. Berry

949 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2013

In short, “[t]he CSRA established a comprehensive system for reviewing personnel action taken against federal employees.” Elgin v. … Sovereign Immunity First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not asserted a valid waiver *626 of sovereign immunity to continue in this suit against the United States.

YOUNGER v. R. GROSS

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

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Claims “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Thus, in “the familiar qualified immunity analysis, the court asks ‘(1) whether the [defendant] violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been

BRACKEN v. MANOR TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2023

any claim of qualified immunity. … And even where a clearly established constitutional right has been violated, if the officer's mistake as to what the law requires was reasonable, then qualified immunity shields the officer from liability.

THOMPKINS v. MUNICIPALITY OF PENN HILLS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “Summary judgment based on qualified immunity should be granted when the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.” Id. at 594-95 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Borough of Ellwood City v. Pennsylvania Power Co.

462 F. Supp. 1343 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1979

An implied repeal of the antitrust laws is not so easily established, however. Conway is not a jurisdictional case. … Insofar as primary jurisdiction rests on practicality, a stay of this action is clearly justified. 3 The second premise of Ricci is also satisfied by the facts of this case. Price squeeze allegations rest on rates.

Fenton v. Stear

423 F. Supp. 767 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1976

Strickland, 420 U.S. at 321 , 95 S.Ct. at 1000 , “We think there must be a degree of immunity if the work of the schools is to go forward; and, however worded, the immunity must be such that public school officials understand … Ordinarily malice is a necessary ingredient to overcome the qualified immunity of school officials.

DISCO v. THOMPSON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ Brief in Support asserts the additional defense of qualified immunity. See ECF No. 34 at 9-10. … 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 person

Dipippa v. Union School District

819 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 2011

Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (absolute immunity); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity); Wood v. … In many cases, the complaint will not clearly specify whether officials are sued personally, in their official capacity, or both. Graham , 473 U.S. at FN. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3099 .