Case law

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.

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.

Zion v. Nassan

283 F.R.D. 247 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2012

Nassan’s answer included “additional qualified immunity allegations.” (ECF No. 98 14-22, ¶¶ 1-47.) On November 23, 2010, the plaintiffs moved to strike the “additional qualified immunity allegations.” (ECF No. 103.) … The plaintiffs’ allegations, which are assumed to be true at this stage, establish that Nassan violated Haniotakis’ clearly-established right to be free from deadly “seizures.”

Brockway v. Shepherd

942 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1996

III.QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim of a violation of a constitutional right if the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation and the contours of … WMe the abstract right to be free from unreasonable seizure clearly is established, for qualified immunity purposes the right must be considered on a more specific level: “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2019

The doctrine of 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 qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v.

Merring v. City of Carbondale, Pennsylvania

558 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2008

Qualified immunity does not apply where state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … If it was, the law regarding entry into a house to make an arrest is clearly established, and qualified immunity would not apply in the instant case.

Hollihan v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

159 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed constitutional violations if the plaintiffs rights were not clearly established when the indi *513 vidual acted. Pearson v. … The burden to establish qualified immunity rests with the defendant. Beers-Capitol, 256 F.3d at 142 n. 15.

Dull v. West Manchester Township Police Department

604 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

Haines, and Bixler are entitled to qualified immunity. … To determine whether a police officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court must ascertain whether the officer violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *752 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Bradley v. West Chester University of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

226 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2017

Therefore, a plaintiff can only overcome the qualified immunity defense by showing “the officer’s conduct [to have] violated a constitutional right,” which right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … In sum, we find that Mixner is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim because, at the time it occurred, Mixner’s conduct did not violate a clearly established federal right. y.

Kauffman v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

766 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2011

Pertinent to qualified immunity, a defendant may raise an affirmative defense “on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the predicate establishing the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint.” Bethel v. … Second, “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Hyman v. Morris

320 F. Supp. 3d 707 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2018

applicable standard for ascertaining whether a right was "clearly established" for the purposes of evaluating qualified immunity: "A Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Doe v. Southeast Delco School District

140 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government employees sued in their personal capacities from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ... which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity will protect Assistant Superintendent Ryan if Plaintiffs *404 have failed to allege he violated their constitutional rights or if Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a right that was not clearly established

Judge v. Shikellamy School District

135 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2015

In determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, a broad and generalized, declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. See Anderson v. … Put another way, for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is considered clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer, that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

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.”

Potts v. Holt

13 F. Supp. 3d 445 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2014

The following discussion underscores why it would be impermissible for us to conclude that the relevant law was clearly established in anything like a manner that would vitiate a qualified immunity defense. … of the qualified immunity analysis.

Kane ex rel. K.J. v. Chester County Department of Children, Youth & Families

10 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2014

The CYF Motion to Dismiss next argues that the discretionary conduct of the CYF defendants is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because plaintiff has not pleaded a right that was so clearly established that … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” James v.

Boyer v. Mohring

994 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2014

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Basile v. Elizabethtown Area School District

61 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 1999

The Supreme Court established the standard for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … (a) were clearly established.

Wray v. Painter

791 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2011

Qualified Immunity In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established law of which a reasonable officer in his position would have known … The Right Was Clearly Established at the Time of the Violation Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, the Court must determine whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation

Isbell v. Bellino

983 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2012

Due Process Claims and Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity inquiry requires further discussion. … Thus, absolute immunity is not applicable. C. Qualified Immunity. 1. Qualified Immunity Standard.