Case law

Fields v. Blake

349 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2004

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “[o]fficials exercising discretionary powers are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a plaintiff has *922 established a constitutional violation, courts evaluating a qualified immunity claim must decide whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Id.

Patterson v. Armstrong County Children and Youth Services

141 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2001

Qualified Immunity — Substantive Due Process All defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense to plaintiffs’ civil rights claims. … The “clearly established law” element of qualified immunity is flexible enough to embrace clearly established law of other circuits. See, e.g., Turiano v.

Holloway v. Brechtse

279 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2003

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is an objective one that asks whether a reasonable public official would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Grant v.

Vicky M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit

689 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2009

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position at all relevant times could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal … NEIU Defendants The individual NEIU defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

Pitchford v. Borough of Munhall

631 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2007

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for the purpose of a qualified immunity inquiry, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that … Pitchford’s “asserted right” is clearly established.

DeHart v. Lehman

9 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1998

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity; and D) Plaintiff was not denied equal protection of the law. 3 Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary … Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right

Robey v. Chester County

946 F. Supp. 333 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1996

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a court determines qualified immunity according to an objective standard: an official’s conduct must not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Only federal constitutional and statutory rights can be considered in evaluating a claim for qualified immunity under Harlow ; violations of clearly established state law alone are not sufficient. Davis v.

Ferris v. Borough of Baldwin

247 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2017

The Court also concludes that Scott and Lederman are entitled to qualified .immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged … Yerke, 604 Fed.Appx. 149, 152 (3d Cir. 2015) (applying Werkheiser to discuss qualified immunity and explaining that “the law [regarding ‘elected officials’ speech’] was not clearly established”).

Gonzalez v. Romanisko

744 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1990

The Defendant, Mastruzzo, here moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on allegations of qualified immunity and insufficiency of the evidence. … The principles of qualified immunity that we have reaffirmed today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly estab *98 lished principles

Marin v. McClincy

15 F. Supp. 3d 602 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2014

Witmer, 526 F.3d 104, 111-112 (3d Cir.2008) (declining to analyze the Constitutional claims and granting qualified immunity under the “clearly established” prong); Robinson v. … Id. 5 Assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiffs Constitutional rights were violated, defendants are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the rights were not clearly established.

Bowser v. Blair County Children and Youth Services

346 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2004

The Third Circuit has discussed qualified immunity in the following manner and terms: A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only if “[t]he contours of the right” are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable … In determining whether qualified immunity is applicable, the Court must first determine for the purposes of the motion if, in fact, a constitutional right was violated, and second, if that right was “clearly established”

Estate of Burke v. Mahanoy City

40 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1999

violated clearly established federal law.” … The Supreme Court has explained what it means by clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be suffi.ciently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is

Green v. Thoryk

30 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1998

. ¶¶ 18, 22, qualify as a violation of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, the standard necessary to overcome qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Refusal to provide redress for baseless claims does not violate a clearly established right.

Roman v. Appleby

558 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1983

Immunity Defendants’ defense of qualified or “good faith” immunity is much more persuasive. The immunity concept is based upon the need to ensure principled and conscientious governmental decision-making. Crowder v. … established law, thereby entitling her to the defense of qualified immunity, I also find that defense of immunity is supported by the provisions of the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) of 1975, 11 P.S. § 2201, et seq

MacLean v. Secor

876 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1995

established at the time of his confinement, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants, however, are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because, at the time plaintiff was detained, this liberty interest was not a “clearly established” right.

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

163 F. Supp. 3d 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2016

analyzing qualified immunity under Saucier v. … established.” 50 Based on our analysis, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for Bamont’s claims in Counts I & II. ii.

Commonwealth v. Scott

503 Pa. 624 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1983

When the Commonwealth refused to grant immunity, the trial court found that although it did not have the power to grant judicial immunity to Hill, a new trial was warranted based on the contents of the unsworn post-trial … When dissecting a double hearsay statement, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant must be independently established.

Costopoulos v. Gibboney

134 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1990

In Harlow , the United States Supreme Court held that State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a 1983 action, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The appellant maintains that the State Troopers did not have probable cause to arrest him, thus, clearly violating his established constitutional rights.

Williams ex rel. Williams v. Papi

30 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendant next argues that “an additional and fully sufficient basis exists to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, namely qualified immunity.” (Doc. 10 at 12.) … It has likewise held that when a “complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.”

Mitchell v. Street

415 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Finally, Defendant Mayor Street asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary functions.” Lodato v. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.