Case law

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2023

Qualified immunity shields 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 would have … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability unless the alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

McLaine v. Lackawanna County

30 F. Supp. 3d 316 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

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_ [C]ourts may … grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not clearly established by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all....

Spiker v. Allegheny County Board of Probation & Parole

920 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2013

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 [or … Whittaker may be entitled to qualified immunity for these actions, however, if it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer in her position that those actions violated clearly established law.

Fowler v. Nicholas

522 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1981

Thus, the court in Woods has included in the defense of qualified immunity the duty to know clearly settled rights. … Therefore, the qualified-immunity defense is irrelevant to this claim.

Kelley v. O'Malley

328 F. Supp. 3d 447 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2018

Qualified immunity then attaches "when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kisela v. … s clearly established constitutional rights and they are entitled to qualified immunity. 8 Plaintiffs also include in Count I claims against John Does # 1 and # 2 for excessive force.

Griffin v. Petrucci

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2025

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for civil damages brought pursuant to section 1983 “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the right was clearly established.

Johnson v. Anhorn

416 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2006

The law became clearly established when the Third Circúit considered the issue of qualified immunity under similar circumstances in Rogers v. … Thus, because the right in question is clearly established, Anhorn must also be denied qualified immunity as to the final plaintiff, Johnson. d.

Africa v. City of Philadelphia

809 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1992

“Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law’.” Davis v. … “clearly established” law and the information he possessed at that time.

Zimmerman v. Corbett

195 F. Supp. 3d 695 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2016

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated- a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. … Whether the right at issue is clearly established Having determined that Plaintiff alleged a constitutional violation, the Court turns the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

WALKER v. REGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2021

trooper was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force did not violate a clearly established right). … No. 201) where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that, for the purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]o be clearly established, a right must be so apparent that ‘every reasonable official would understand that what

Kosta v. Connolly

709 F. Supp. 592 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1989

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions taken against plaintiffs. In Harlow v. … Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 733 (3d Cir.1987) (defendants not entitled to qualified immunity where law clearly established that a public employee could not be demoted in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights).

Benckini v. Hawk

654 F. Supp. 2d 310 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2009

Under the defense of qualified immunity, “[gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “A court presented with a claim of qualified immunity must examine both the law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and the facts available to the officer at that time, and must then determine

J. D. Pflaumer, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice

450 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1978

at most, only the qualified immunity enjoyed by police officers. … Defendant Manno, based on the allegations of this case, is entitled to only a qualified immunity defense, requiring him to establish that his alleged action in directing the seizure of the plaintiffs’ records was done in

Davis v. Borough

669 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2009

“A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Berg v. … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ” Wilson v.

Rodriguez v. Panarello

119 F. Supp. 3d 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2015

clearly established. … Moreover, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the right allegedly violated must have been clearly established at the time of the violation.

Strathie v. Department of Transportation of Pennsylvania

547 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

Thus, under Wood , the immunity defense would be unavailable to defendants if the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … that their actions would violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Kingsmill v. Szewczak

117 F. Supp. 3d 657 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2015

Qualiñed Immunity Officer Szewczak argues' that he is entitled to qualified immunity because “it was not clearly established oh February 9, 2014, that calling a person over to a patrol car and failing to warn that person … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct did not violate clearly-established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.

O'Donnell v. Knott

283 F. Supp. 3d 286 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2017

qualified immunity because the complaint does not plausibly allege that they violated Plaintiff's clearly established First Amendment rights. … In sum, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of her clearly established constitutional rights. Accordingly, the detectives' qualified immunity defense will be denied, without prejudice. 10 C.

Waldon v. Borough of Upper Darby

77 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1999

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Plaintiffs, of which a reasonable officer would … A qualified immunity claim is ordinarily decided by first determining whether a violation of a constitutional or statutory right is alleged, and then next determining whether that right was clearly established and would have

Bistrian v. Levi

299 F. Supp. 3d 686 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2018

established. 107 The failure of either prong will result in the official being entitled to qualified immunity. 108 Here, Plaintiff has not shown that he had a clearly established right to be removed from the SHU within the … was clearly established.