Case law

K. Blackwell v. City of Pittsburgh

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2025

“Clearly established means that, at the time of 7 Thomas resolved the tension between federal notice pleading and qualified immunity’s “fact-specific inquiry.” … clearly established.

Lancie v. Giles

132 Pa. Commw. 255 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1990

The present standard for determining if qualified immunity applies was first established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), in which case the U.S. … Supreme Court stated that qualified immunity will be found if an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person should have known. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Commonwealth v. Markun

185 A.3d 1026 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2018

As described by the United States Supreme Court: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Pearson’s description of qualified immunity as providing immunity from suit, rather than a mere defense to liability, describes this situation.

Picariello v. Commonwealth

54 Pa. Commw. 252 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1980

However, plaintiff’s complaint clearly contradicts that claim, by alleging that the Secretary acted as a Commonwealth agent. 6 The guidelines established in DuBree v. … Defendant shall file an answer, possibly with new matter addressing the issue of qualified official immunity, if desired.

Galette, C. v. NJ Transit

293 A.3d 649 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2023

Accordingly, we will not discuss her further. 2 It is well-established that “a defense of governmental immunity is an absolute defense and is non-waivable,” thus, “it may be raised at any time[.]” Snead v. … Specifically, the Court has recognized that the historical circumstances of the passage of the Eleventh Amendment clearly evince an intent “to preserve the States' traditional immunity from private suits.”

P.G.S. v. S. Hendricks

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2025

qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, this Court applies that doctrine to state officers when considering federal law violations and will be found if an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a

Yoder, J. v. McCarthy Const., Inc

291 A.3d 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2023

Whether [JNOV] is required because [McCarthy] is clearly entitled to statutory[-]employer immunity? 2. … McCarthy’s Brief at 9.11 First Issue In McCarthy’s first issue, it asserts that JNOV is required because it is clearly entitled to statutory-employer immunity. Id. at 20.

Ziccardi v. Commonwealth

109 Pa. Commw. 628 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1987

Federal courts have applied only a qualified immunity on behalf of Commonwealth officials in section 1983 claims. … Specifically, under the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Wood, the immunity defense would be unavailable to the secretary if the constitutional rights which he allegedly infringed were clearly established at

Feldman v. Hoffman

107 A.3d 821 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2014

Hoffman’s duties. 6 The trial court further found that the Letter “was not addressed solely to [Feldman] but to a number of people, and [Feldman] did not clearly establish that [Decedent’s] original note was her property … Hoffman qualifies as a high-ranking public official and it was alleged that he was acting within the scope of his duties, he qualifies for high official immunity. II.

Costopoulos v. Gibboney

134 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1990

In Harlow , the United States Supreme Court held that State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a 1983 action, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The appellant maintains that the State Troopers did not have probable cause to arrest him, thus, clearly violating his established constitutional rights.

Hall v. ACME MARKETS, INC.

110 Pa. Commw. 199 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1987

Commonwealth, 481 Pa. 540 , 393 A.2d 293 (1978), held that officials are protected by a qualified immunity. … Id. at 545 , 393 A.2d at 295 . 2 Section 1 of the Act of May 18, 1923, P.L. 259. 3 In Witt , this court held that consecutive Secretaries of Banking were protected from suit by the immunity established in *206 DuBree .

Pine v. Synkonis

79 Pa. Commw. 479 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1984

There was also evidence that damaged or missing guardrail had been left unrepaired for an extended period of time. 3 Qualified immunity Initially we must determine whether the Appellants are protected by the qualified immunity … In DuBree , the Court 4 analyzed prior law governing official immunity and established considerations for determining whether an official should be immune. These can be summarized as follows: 1.

Barber v. Lynch

275 Pa. Super. 333 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1980

and qualified privilege or immunity. … The preliminary objections of Appellees do not specifically use the term “qualified privilege” or “qualified immunity”.

T. Gardner v. T. Wealand & J. Fustine

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2026

Federal qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … See R.R. at 284. 11 While he mentions “qualified immunity under federal law” in the heading of the immunity argument section of his brief, see Appellant’s Brief at 22, we note that Appellant bases his immunity

Fischer v. KASSAB

32 Pa. Commw. 581 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1977

He also “[participates in formulating overall Department objectives and policies and in establishing the short and long-range improvements for the State Highway system.” While this is by no means the limit of Mr. … Burke, Superintendent of the Parole Division of the Board of Probation and Parole, clearly an officer of the Commonwealth as we have defined it.

Boyle, J. v. Meyer, J.

2025 Pa. Super. 198 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2025

Grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is proper “only when the moving party’s right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that the trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise.” Id. … Defendants contend that - 13 - J-A17017-25 the PREP Act establishes a liberal causation standard to invoke immunity, requiring only that a covered countermeasure has “played some

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Reading Area Water Authority

937 A.2d 1173 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2007

Latrobe Municipal Authority, 913 A.2d 988 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), the trial court determined that a per se violation of the Act does not create a dangerous condition of Reading’s facilities, so as to qualify under the exception … Clearly, the dangerous condition, as alleged, originated with the conduct of Reading’s employees.

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth

177 A.3d 1000 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2017

Under federal common law, state legislative privilege and state legislative, immunity is “qualified based on the nature of the claim at issue.” Id. at 334 . … Legislative Respondents clearly are not invoking qualified legislative privilege and immunity under federal common law; rather, they are invoking absolute legislative privilege and immunity based on the Speech and Debate

Travers v. Cameron County School District

117 Pa. Commw. 606 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1988

This was clearly error. Equitable estoppel “does not create a cause of action at law and, unless a plaintiff can first show a cause of action, estoppel will not supply one for him in an action at law.” … These factual allegations and inferences are sufficient, at this point in the litigation where they must be accepted as true, to establish a promise, expected to be relied on, which was relied on by Appellant to his detriment

Johnson v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

805 A.2d 644 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2002

DOT’s recall was effected pursuant to Section 1519(c) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(c), which authorizes DOT to recall operating privileges when a licensee’s incompetency has been established. … to sovereign immunity).