Case law

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

Kelly v. Jones

148 F. Supp. 3d 395 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2015

The right in question was clearly established, such that qualified immunity is unwarranted. ‘ Defendants argue that Officer Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right allegedly violated was not … clearly established at the time Officer Jones acted.

Whitfield v. City of Philadelphia

587 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2008

Second, if the answer is yes, the court must then determine “ ‘whether the right was clearly established.’ ” Id. … In considering the second prong of the Saucier test, the Third Circuit clarified that “[a] right is clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Williams v. Fedor

69 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1999

established,” *673 qualified immunity to the law enforcement officers was granted. … Although the right against self-incrimination is itself clearly established, Perschau is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity ‘[so long as his] decision was reasonable, even if mistaken.’

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

Felker v. Christine

796 F. Supp. 135 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1992

In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v. … protection program without notice to the father as father’s right to a hearing was clearly established when the child was placed in the program).

Fanning v. Montgomery County Children & Youth Services

702 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1988

Mason argues that he violated no clearly established right of the plaintiffs, and is therefore free from liability even under the less protective cloak of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The remaining question with respect to Mr. Mason is whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right of which Mr. Mason should have been aware.

Moore v. Giorla

302 F. Supp. 3d 700 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2018

Qualified Immunity When a defendant in a § 1983 action claims qualified immunity, a court must first determine if the plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to establish the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory … Regarding the qualified immunity analysis, Defendant only contests whether the injury was sufficiently serious, and whether Plaintiff's rights were clearly established.

Reynolds v. Smythe

418 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has enunciated the qualified immunity inquiry as follows: “First, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights. … Saucier instructs lower courts to examine whether a constitutional right was clearly established in the second-prong of a two-prong qualified immunity inquiry, whereas Harvey examines whether defendants violated a clearly

MILLER v. GOGGIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2024

purposes of qualified immunity.” … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of

Rogers v. Pocono Mountain East High School

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing “discretionary functions,” are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“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

Clifton v. Borough of Eddystone

824 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2011

A state official with qualified immunity has no civil liability for discretionary conduct so long as he does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Furthermore, the right to be free from the use of excessive force in the course of handcuffing is clearly established and is not defeated by qualified immunity. Id. at 778 . Plaintiff was not subject to excessive force.

Eberhardinger v. City of York

341 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff's rights were not "clearly established" when the individual acted. See Pearson v. … The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly admonished that, when analyzing qualified immunity, courts should not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality."

Grant v. Winik

948 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2013

Accordingly, using pepper spray under these circumstances did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law, and so the Court finds that Baran is entitled to qualified immunity on this issue. 3. … Under these circumstances, Winik’s use of deadly force did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. Accordingly, Winik is entitled to qualified immunity.

Dull v. WEST MANCHESTER TP. POLICE DEPT.

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

The court may *749 eschew difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant acted … To determine whether a police officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court must ascertain whether the officer violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional *752 rights of which a reasonable person would have known

John v. County of Centre

80 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2000

“Unless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” P.F. v. … Therefore, we find that plaintiffs cannot overcome defendants’ qualified immunity defense by showing that the challenged conduct violated rights that were clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

SMITH v. MCKINNEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2023

As an affirmative defense, the burden of establishing qualified immunity falls on to the official claiming it. , 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011). … clearly established when the conduct took place. , 905 F.3d at 716.

Tunnell v. Office of Public Defender

583 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1984

If the law was not clearly established, the defendant will prevail on summary judgment on the basis of the qualified immunity defense, id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2739 , unless the plaintiff claims that the official actually knew … If, on the other hand, the applicable law was clearly established, then, as the Court noted in Harlow , it should have been known to “a reasonably competent public official,” and the qualified immunity defense “should ordinarily

Showers v. Spangler

957 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1997

of clearly established law.” … While we conclude here that Johnson is correct in so finding, we must also conclude that this was not clearly established law in April of 1993. Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. D.