Case law

DAVIS v. QUINN

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

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants Maitland, Paris, Brown, and Evanchick argue that each of them is entitled to qualified immunity on Davis’s Section 1983 claims. … claims for discrimination has long been clearly established.

FLETCHER v. COULDWELL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2023

“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.” … rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident.

Herd v. County of Allegheny

463 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1979

Section 1983 provides relief from deprivation under state law, custom or usage of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. … The qualifying exam consists of thee parts (1) question and answer; (2) charge; and (3) literary matter.

Goodson v. Maggi

797 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2011

He adds that the Colorado Court involuntarily terminated his parental rights on clearly falsified and frivolous evidence. … In 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected its pr e-Exxon Mobil formulation of the Rooker-Feldman inquiry, and established the following test, based on the Supreme Court’s holding in Exxon

Palumbo v. Orr

579 F. Supp. 129 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1984

It clearly appears from the face of the Amended Complaint that the actions of the Defendants were directed against the Plaintiff as an individual, and not as a member of a class. … If Defendant Orr told Plaintiff she could associate with whomever she pleased, as Plaintiff has alleged in paragraph 25, then Plaintiff is unable to establish that her discharge was in retaliation for exercising her right

Z. v. OIL CITY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2019

“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 … Importantly, however, “[q]ualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.”

DAVENPORT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2026

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … A two- pronged inquiry is used to determine whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

United States v. Sunday

315 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2018

The documents of record establish this conviction with the requisite level of certainty demanded by Shepard . Thus, it counts as a qualifying predicate offense. … If so, do the Shepard documents that can be considered establish with certainty which subsection formed the basis for each conviction? And, if so, does each conviction qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA? Cf.

CHILCOTT v. CITY OF ERIE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2021

Lastly, Chilcott argues that Schardt is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Discussion and Analysis Difficult constitutional issues are typically involved in cases where qualified immunity is in question.1 “When qualified immunity is raised at the

ROBISON v. VOLS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2021

Qualified Immunity The Defendants have also raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss. … State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damage liability claims if their conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Toth v. California University of Pennsylvania

844 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2012

Although a plaintiff cannot establish the existence of discrimination or retaliation merely by showing that a materially adverse action has been taken on the basis of “highly subjective” criteria, an employer cannot immunize … As a part of the System, the University is immune from suit in federal court. Skehan v.

LEANDRY-MORALES

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

Next, Plaintiff has clearly alleged an adverse action sufficient to satisfy the second element of retaliation. … Here, Defendants do not dispute that Leandry-Morales is a qualified individual with a disability.

VIM, INC. v. Somerset Hotel Ass'n

19 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 1998

matter of law,” the nonmoving party must establish the existence of every element essential to its case. … Indeed, one member of the board could not determine from the evidence presented whether plaintiffs qualified for the special exception or not, and voted against it.

Indiana Area School District v. H.H.

428 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2006

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under § 504, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he is “disabled” as defined by the Act; (2) he is “otherwise qualified” to participate in school activities; (3) the … The Third Circuit has clearly held, however, that "a plaintiff need not prove thát defendants’ discrimination was intentional.” Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 172 F.3d at 253 , citing W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d at 492 .

Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. v. Ken Penn Amusement, Inc.

574 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1983

Clearly, a contract cannot impose obligations upon one who is not a party to the contract. Allen Organ Co. v. North American Rockwell Corp., 363 F.Supp. 1117 (D.Pa.1973). … PRMSA points out that the bill of lading was clearly marked “freight to be collected”, and not “freight prepaid.” PRMSA’s long form bill of lading provides, in relevant part, as follows: 18 FREIGHT, LIENS, QUANTITY...

United States Ex Rel. Peters v. Carson

126 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 1954

The authority for plaintiff to secure relief in the highest tribunal of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a court of original jurisdiction is well recognized and clearly chartered both by statute and legal construction. … That case held that the broadly expressed terms of the Civil Rights Act could not have been intended to deprive state legislators of their preexisting and well-established complete immunity from civil liability for official

Herman v. CLEARFIELD COUNTY PA.

836 F. Supp. 1178 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1993

Guy stated that the decedent “presented a cluster of signs and symptoms which clearly placed him in a high suicide risk category[.]”' … While 42 Pa.C.S. § 8550 removes immunity from individual defendants who act criminally, or with actual malice or willfulness, that section does not remove the immunity of a county or prison board even if an individual defendant

Prochaska v. Fediaczko

458 F. Supp. 778 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1978

Judge Henderson moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, suggesting that the doctrines of judicial immunity and abstention are applicable. … Also inapplicable is the equitable doctrine of abstention first clearly articulated in Railroad Commission v.

WILLIAMS v. HARRY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2023

Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from suits seeking to impose liability for money damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, the court must consider “(1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Guthrie v. Lady Jane Collieries, Inc.

556 F. Supp. 164 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 1983

The 44% average seems clearly to be substantial enough to satisfy the 50% rule of thumb, in the light of what has been said before regarding the non-crucial character of that rule. … These are enough to establish bona fide substantial performance of management functions. The importance of such functions suffices to make them the employees’ “primary duty.”