Case law

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

JOHNSTON v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2019

Qualified immunity “shield[s] [government actors] 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 … District, our Court of Appeals emphasized that the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry must be analyzed “at the appropriate level of specificity.” 872 F.3d 165, 173 (3d Cir. 2017).

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 .

MADERO v. LUFFEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2021

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 … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”

Jonnet Development Corp. v. Caliguiri

558 F. Supp. 962 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1983

, or (2) the activity constitutes municipal action in furtherance of a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy. … That was clearly not the intent of the General Assembly when it enacted the Urban Redevelopment Law. 35 Pa.S.A. § 1702.

Doe v. Wohlgemuth

376 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 1974

But, even if we assume, as do the Plaintiffs, that abortion payments are clearly authorized under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, nevertheless, Congress has given the States great latitude in establishing standards … However, subsequent developments clearly establish that these state interests are not presently legitimate justifications for AFDC disqualification.

Ward v. United States

331 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1971

It is our view that such a record book would qualify as a business record. … limit any waiver of such immunity in whatever fashion it sees fit.

HACKNEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2026

violated was not clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.” … Because the Amended Complaint does not show that the CYF Defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is premature.

ARRINGTON v. CITY OF ERIE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2023

Qualified Immunity is an affirmative defense for government officials subject to §1983 actions which operates to shield government officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly … Thus, Defendants are unable to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims.

Munchinski v. Wilson

807 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2011

Ultimately, it is unnecessary to engage in a “cause and prejudice” analysis of Plaintiffs claims, as he so clearly qualifies for the second exception to the procedural default rule — i.e., failing to allow his claims to proceed … The Superior Court’s application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, was unreasonable with respect to these pieces of evidence.

Greenwood v. Stone

136 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1992

Again, our review establishes that the court cannot determine legislative intent from these contradictory and politically polarized statements without engaging in sheer speculation. … Therefore, it clearly has had an opportunity to be heard on the issue.

PINKNEY v. MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2020

Qualified immunity “shield[s officers] from liability for civil damages insofar as theit conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … actions and his right to qualified immunity.

Logue v. International Rehabilitation Associates, Inc.

683 F. Supp. 518 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1988

On appeal the Court of Appeals found that plaintiff had established a prima facie case, 837 F.2d 150 . … He acknowledged the great difficulties in establishing a new branch office for the whole state of Ohio.

ORNDORF v. FYE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2023

Qualified Immunity for Fye and Miller Moving Defendants assert that Fye and Miller are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal claims under Section 1983 unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (citing Saucier v.

McLaughlin v. Brennan

700 F. Supp. 272 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1988

Defendants clearly are not exempted from the Fair Labor Standards Act by virtue of their status as lessor to an interstate carrier. Boutell v. … Having found that defendants have failed to establish that they qualify as either a “motor contract carrier” or a “motor common carrier,” we conclude as a matter of law, that their mechanics are not exempt from the overtime

Swope v. City of Pittsburgh

90 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2015

Alternatively, it would appear that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity which shields government officials who "reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present" from liability. Forde v. … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (“qualified immunity protects 'all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law’ ”). See also Walker v.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of J. Allan Steel Co. v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co. (In Re J. Allen Steel Co.)

336 B.R. 226 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2005

The parties then proceeded to trial on the issue of whether the remaining $837,061.96 qualified under the ordinary course defense set forth at 11 U.S.C. § 547 (c)(2). … Following a one day trial, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Opinion finding that the payments did not so qualify.

SLEDGE v. BOLT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2023

Qualified immunity shields Beganics from suit unless he “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Thomas v. … “For qualified-immunity purposes, ‘clearly established rights are derived either from binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent or from a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts of Appeals

Carcaise v. Cemex, Inc.

217 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2002

I.C.E. urges that consolidation is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), stating: The above-captioned ... actions clearly involve common questions of law and fact.... [0]ne event — the dragline accident … In addition, the court remains unconvinced that it properly may consolidate the two cases without running afoul of the well-established principles in Heckendorn .

Albright v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

463 F. Supp. 1220 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1979

The sole limitation placed upon the doctrine of judicial immunity is that actions clearly and definitively beyond the scope of the judge’s jurisdiction are not protected. The Supreme Court in Bradley v. … However, an examination of the complaint reveals that that document is devoid of any facts which would tend to establish that a conspiracy ever existed between Reynolds and Judge Weber.