Case law

Brown v. Smythe

780 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1992

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves to insulate governmental officials from liability for civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The defendants bear the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity, and a plaintiff may overcome the official’s defense by demonstrating that his or her clearly established rights were knowingly or recklessly

Mitchell v. Luckenbill

680 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2010

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Young v. Keohane

809 F. Supp. 1185 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

In some cases, the qualified immunity issue may also turn on “the complementary question whether defendant had a clearly established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v. … What is “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes, however, commands only some, “not precise factual correspondence between relevant precedents and the conduct at issue.” Ryan, 860 F.2d at 1208 .

Fields v. City of Philadelphia

166 F. Supp. 3d 528 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2016

immunity, “our case law does not clearly establish a right to videotape police officers performing their official duties.” … Affirming the district court and rejecting officers’ claim of qualified immunity, the court of appeals held qualified immunity did not apply to officers because it was clearly established, "gathering information about government

Keefer v. Durkos

371 F. Supp. 2d 686 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for all of the allegations of the Complaint. Defendants’ Brief, p. 19. … Therefore, the Plaintiff possessed a clearly established right to procedural due process in her termination by virtue of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law. Qualified immunity is denied as to Count II. .

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."

Tearpock-Martini v. Borough

98 F. Supp. 3d 697 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2015

For a qualified immunity analysis, therefore, the court must examine: 1) whether the officials violated a constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Wright v. … Accordingly, we cannot find that the right was clearly established at the time and qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants.

Church of Universal Love & Music v. Fayette County

892 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2012

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity involves a two-prong inquiry. … I find, therefore, that the pertinent law was not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Hines v. Proper

442 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2006

Qualified immunity extends to a government official if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery.”

Lattany v. Four Unknown U.S. Marshals

845 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1994

I must next decide whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional rights violated by the defendants were not “clearly established” at the time of the incidents. … There is no meaningful dispute regarding qualified immunity. The right of both convicted prisoners and pre-trial detainees not to suffer deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is clearly established.

Ball v. Township of Silver Spring

833 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2011

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Courts conduct a two step analysis for a qualified immunity defense: whether law enforcement’s acts violated a constitutional right, and if they did, whether that right was clearly established at the time. Mierzwa v.

Smith v. Wolfe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2020

State officials - 18 - have qualified immunity from claims for monetary relief if their conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … As to the question of whether the right at issue was clearly established when the Defendants’ conduct took place, courts should not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Id. at 716.

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.

Jubilee v. Horn

975 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1997

Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … The Court later clarified this objective test by explaining that “to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Allen v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFF. OF PHILADELPHIA

644 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is “ ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ ” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (quoting Mitchell v. … 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

Egolf v. Witmer

421 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity Because A Reasonable Person Would Not Have Believed They Were Violating Clearly Established Rights. … The Supreme Court has directed that regardless of whether the rights at issue are ones that “a reasonable person would have known” or are “clearly established,” I must begin my evaluation of a qualified immunity defense by

Larsen v. State Employees' Retirement System

553 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2008

“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.” Burella v. … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

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.

Doe v. Methacton School District

880 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual Methacton Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity for all constitutional claims against them. The burden to show immunity is on the defendant. … The test for whether qualified immunity should be applied is whether: (1) government officials (2) performed discretionary functions (3) that did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (4) of which

Walter v. Pike County, Pennsylvania

465 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2006

If the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … See, e.g., Smith, 318 F.3d at 510 (finding that the state-created danger doctrine was clearly established by the year 1999).