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.

Jackson v. City of Pittsburgh

688 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2010

Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 , 100 S.Ct. 1920 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980)). “ ‘The qualified immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … his or her actions violated clearly established law.”

SEPTA v. City of Phila., Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2014

The court concluded: “Clearly then, as an agency and instrumentality of the Commonwealth, SEPTA qualifies as an ‘employer’ for purposes of the [Human Relations] Act, subject to the jurisdiction of the [Pennsylvania Human … The fact that the Commonwealth Court did not employ the magic words -- sovereign immunity -- is of no consequence, as the court clearly recognized SEPTA’s enabling statute and its existence as a Commonwealth Agency subject

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2022

Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ … Therefore, the qualified immunity analysis involves determining whether the defendant violated a right that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at 778.

Cayenne v. Tobyhanna Township, PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2024

to qualified immunity. … the right was clearly established.

CROSLAND v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2023

That leaves the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the officers’ conduct violated clearly established law. … its caselaw suggests that municipal liability should remain untethered to the “clearly established” qualified immunity standard.

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … 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.

BUSH v. RENEGAR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity has long “protect[ed] government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

McKnight v. Kingsboro

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2024

At this stage of the litigation, these averments are sufficient to establish that Defendants Ferrari and Heine violated clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity. See Dayoub v. … Additionally, the “clearly established” test relates only to a qualified immunity, not a sovereign immunity, analysis. Brautigam, 684 F.

Cramer v. Bohinski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

Alternatively, The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the violation. (Id.) … the right was clearly established.

Aguilar v. Moyer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2023

the right was clearly established. … Moyer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Mojica Carrion v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2023

Defendants argue that Mojica Carrion’s claims are barred by qualified immunity because the constitutional right which he contends was violated was not clearly established until after the incident underlying his lawsuit … clearly established by Procunier); Martin v.

Donahue v. City of Hazleton, PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2020

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 … immunity at this time since “[i]t was clearly established by [Baker v.

ALIOTA v. MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2024

If the complaint fails to state a claim of a violation of clearly established law on its face, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … Here, the individual Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the “filing of a counterclaim for defamation did not violate Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights” (ECF No. 18,

Billups v. Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center

910 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2012

Immunity Finally, the Court will address whether Drs. … Choudhary, Crowell, and Dias are absolutely immune from liability. B.

Booher v. Wakefield

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the right was clearly established.

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District

425 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2006

Therefore, each defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity unless she violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff Christopher Klump. In other words, there is a two-part test. … Further, even if the defendants did violate Christopher Klump’s constitutional rights, they would have qualified immunity if the constitutional right were not clearly established.

Feingold v. Hill

360 Pa. Super. 539 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1987

With respect to Judge Hill, the law in Pennsylvania is well established that judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages when performing judicial acts, even if their actions are in error or performed with malice … Clearly such activity would have fallen within the parameters of Mr. Bala’s duties. As such, Mr. Bala is immune from suit in the instant matter under the protection of quasi-judicial immunity.

CONONIE v. BRUNNER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2025

In addition, Officer Brunner is entitled to qualified immunity, because he relied upon a credible report that a crime had occurred, and upon his interview with the Plaintiff, which supported his belief that a crime had … Barkes, 575 U.S. 822, 825 (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

Brown v. Harris 6034

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2023

Qualified immunity protects officers when the law underlying the alleged violations is not clearly established. … Accordingly, the relevant right was not clearly established and Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity.