Case law

Ickes v. Borough of Bedford

807 F. Supp. 2d 306 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2011

In order for a federal right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [or she] is doing … A plaintiff seeking redress for a violation of his or her constitutional or statutory rights may overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity “only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the con

Neuburger v. Thompson

305 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2004

Pleasant, 142 F.3d 898, 902 (6th Cir.1998) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for the violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … Connor as authority establishing Ms. Neuburger’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force.

Thompson v. Wagner

631 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2008

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is … In this case, the qualified immunity inquiry is relatively simple.

Arthurs v. Beard

623 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2009

“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 … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). % & if: # % “[Cjlearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable

McCachren v. Blacklick Valley School District

217 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2002

They first claim that they enjoy qualified immunity from a suit of this kind. … This alleged involvement in conduct that violates established law is sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage to defeat the individual defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Burns v. County of Cambria, Pa.

764 F. Supp. 1031 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1991

A government official will be denied qualified immunity for having violated a clearly established right when “in light of preexisting law the unlawfulness [is] apparent.” Anderson, 107 S.Ct. at 3039 . … The grant of qualified immunity to the defendants properly depends upon whether the plaintiffs’ right to be free from politically based firings was clearly established. In People of Three Mile Island v. Nuclear Reg.

Brown v. Stewart

910 F. Supp. 1064 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1996

“Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if the applicable law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation.” Karnes v. … Kozakiewicz responds that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions violated no clearly established constitutional right. County Defs’ Br. at 9-10. Supervisory liability exists under section 1983.

Hyman v. Capital One Auto Fin.

306 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2018

Defendants Devlin and Morris Are Not Shielded By Qualified Immunity 14 "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Rogers v. United States

696 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … The privilege of qualified immunity, however, can be overcome when state officials violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v.

Celec v. Edinboro University

132 F. Supp. 3d 651 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2015

Dist., 800 F.3d 633 , 637-39 and n. 4 (3d Cir.2015) (discussing general principles of qualified immunity defense). … See Spady, supra, at 639 ("In order for a right to be clearly established there must be applicable precedent from the Supreme Court ...”).

Hutchings v. Erie City & County Library Board of Directors

516 F. Supp. 1265 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1981

Admittedly, in appropriate instances, certain defendants in civil rights actions can be shielded from liability for damages by asserting a qualified good faith immunity defense. See, Wood v. … Therefore, we conclude that this affidavit by itself, is not sufficient to establish a good faith immunity defense for all of the defendants in this action.

Hayes v. Erie County Office of Children and Youth

497 F. Supp. 2d 684 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2007

Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … If the right was not clearly established, however, then the official is entitled to qualified immunity, and the plaintiffs claim must be dismissed.

Deforte v. Borough of Worthington

364 F. Supp. 3d 458 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2019

Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity "shield[s] officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." Pearson v. … As explained below, Defendants are entitled to Qualified Immunity and to summary judgment on the merits, because even though Plaintiff's right not to be charged based on fabricated evidence was clearly established as of 2012

Marshall v. Borough of Ambridge

798 F. Supp. 1187 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1992

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.”

Hicks, Ex Rel. Hicks v. Purchase Line School Dist.

251 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants finally argue that the individual defendants, district administrators, are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants argument that John’s rights under IDEA were not clearly established because they were allegedly unaware that he suffered from a disability misses the point.

Barkley v. Westmoreland County Children's Bureau

853 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 2012

Qualified Immunity Finally, County Defendants’ claim that all of their actions were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity bars the assertion of constitutional liability against government officials, unless they violated a clearly-established statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable person in the

Davila v. Northern Regional Joint Police Board

979 F. Supp. 2d 612 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2013

A government official, such as a police officer, will be entitled to claim qualified immunity from suit unless (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right possessed by the plaintiff and (2) the right was “clearly … Because qualified immunity is not merely a defense to liability, but renders a defendant completely immune to suit, a court should determine at the earliest possible *627 stage whether a grant of qualified immunity would

Campbell v. Conroy

55 F. Supp. 3d 750 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity holds that government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit where their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … right was clearly established.”

Malone v. ECONOMY BOROUGH MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY

669 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity. … his or her actions violated clearly established law.”

Imhoff v. Temas

67 F. Supp. 3d 700 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2014

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity where their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendants make a cursory and broad sweeping claim to their entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the allegations are insufficient to establish that any Defendant knowingly violated a clearly established constitutional