Case law

United States v. Clemons

658 F. Supp. 1116 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1987

person in a proceeding, or, two, cause or induce any person to, A, withhold testimony or withhold a record, document or other object from an official proceeding, commits an offense against the United States.” ” “In order to establish … Again the jury clearly was made aware of this principle of law in the course of this Court’s charge to them.

Young v. Municipality of Bethel Park

646 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1986

To the extent Cohen implies or suggests that post-termination remedies are solely adequate to provide due process, such implication or suggestion is clearly superseded by Loudermill . … On the basis of this discussion, therefore, one might conclude that defendant Kletch's action qualified as “random and unauthorized” within the meaning of Parratt .

Zimmerman v. Susie

534 F. Supp. 626 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1982

“[I]t is well established that, in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be … Because there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity as to claims based on the tort of misrepresentation, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

Pellegrino Food Products Co. v. City of Warren

136 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2000

STANDARD OF REVIEW A motion for judgment on the pleadings is not granted “unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … It denies immunity to the employees of local agencies, the individually named City Defendants in this case, but does not deny immunity to the City itself. See Cooper v.

Hodson v. Alpine Manor, Inc.

512 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2007

But a forgiving interpretatioh does not render immune from summary judgment claims that lack factual viability. … The ADA To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the .ADA, “a plaintiff must be able to establish that he or she (1) has a ‘disability,’ (2) is a ‘qualified individual,’ 3 and (3) has suffered *389

SIMPSON v. HORNING

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because, even if there was an Eighth Amendment violation, “Plaintiff cannot identify clearly established constitutional precedent that would suffice to put prison

GREEN v. MANROSS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2022

In analyzing whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity we must determine: (1) whether the facts establish the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time … The Court finds that Ciccarelli is entitled to qualified immunity because the law as it then existed would not have put him on notice that his conduct violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. D.

Rau v. Darling's Drug Store, Inc.

388 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1975

She, therefore, qualifies under this requirement. … As was previously noted, in order to qualify under Sections 541.1 or 541.2, an employee must meet all of the criteria of that Section, and the evidence does not show Rau qualified under either of them.

COMRIE v. WOOD

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2022

How clearly wrong an order has to be before an official must disobey it is a question of qualified immunity: officials are shielded by qualified immunity from liability for money damages 2 … when their conduct does not violate clearly established legal rights.

Valley Line Company v. United States

390 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1975

They are of general importance, and quite distinct from the specific regulatory requirements with respect to water carriers established by Part III in 1940. … Clearly, the Commission could subject IML to regulation as a freight forwarder at any time by removing the section 204(a) (4a) exemptions granted to the motor carriers it utilized.

KENDIG v. STOLAR

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 2022

A claim for reckless investigation has become no more “clearly established,” prior to the investigation in this case or since. … Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and the claim will be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s equal protection claim likewise fails.

Spaeder v. United States

478 F. Supp. 73 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1978

Thus, there will be no funds qualifying for the charitable deduction under § 2055. … The court finds that the evidence clearly establishes that decedent provided the entire consideration for the lots and for the construction of the house.

Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh

395 F. Supp. 1275 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1975

“In sum, a judge must be presumed to be qualified, and there must be a substantial burden upon the affiant to show grounds for believing the contrary.” In re Union Leader Corp., 292 F.2d 381, 389 (1st Cir. 1961). … Strickland does no more than set out the standard by which an official’s claimed immunity may be tested.

Habe v. Fort Cherry School District

786 F. Supp. 1216 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1992

Although practice and mutual understanding may establish entitlement in some situations (see Stana v. … There is less reason to grant high official immunity to defendant Manion in this case.

Bougher v. University of Pittsburgh

713 F. Supp. 139 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1989

Defendant Pitt additionally asserts the Eleventh Amendment as a defense, and all defendants claim absolute and qualified immunity for any actions taken. … It also clearly reaches what has been defined as quid pro quo sexual harassment by a recipient of Federal funds, since without administrative interpretation this clearly violates Title IX by conditioning benefits on the basis

HICKOX

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

Since under the PLRA I am required to consider the defense of qualified immunity “at any time,” within the same time, defendants shall also either assert or waive the defense of qualified immunity and unless the defense … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) alleged as to each individual defendant violates clearly established law, at the level of specificity required by the Supreme Court.

VICTOR v. BURNS

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

violate clearly established legal rights. … Qualified immunity therefore operates to protect officers from liability at the “sometimes hazy border between excessive and acceptable force,” and to ensure that before they are subjected to suit, officers are on notice

Protos v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

615 F. Supp. 1513 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1985

The credible evidence establishes that defendant had available, at the same rate of pay, qualified employees who were able and did perform the assignment of plaintiff during her absence, without undue hardship or de minimus … First, in our judgment, the panel’s opinion in Jordan misconstrues Hardison because, assuming an employee demands a guarantee of immunity from work on the Sabbath, an employer is required to reasonably accommodate the observance

Odato v. Vargo

677 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1988

Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257, n. 11 , 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1049, n. 11 , 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978), and while the jury rejected the good faith immunity defense of defendants, we do not believe that the Supreme Court would countenance … Defendant also argue that the evidence did not qualify as a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(1). We disagree.

Chapman v. UPMC Health System

516 F. Supp. 2d 506 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2007

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Rehab Act, the employee must demonstrate: “(1) that he or she has a disability; (2) that he or she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … Qualified Individual Having concluded that plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence of her disability, the court must consider whether she is a “qualified individual.”