Case law

Pribula v. Wyoming Area School District

599 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2009

Qualified Immunity “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 … Each of the individual Defendants in this case is entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Anderson v.

Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

189 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs can establish their state-created danger claim, Coach Walkowiak is entitled to qualified immunity. … In analyzing whether the coach was entitled to qualified immunity, the Third Circuit explained that although district court opinions “may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified

O'Donnell v. Tinicum Township

110 F. Supp. 3d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2015

Qualified Immunity Gaul also argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Whether Gaul Violated a Clearly-Established Right “An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statute or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established

Hall v. ACME MARKETS, INC.

110 Pa. Commw. 199 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1987

Commonwealth, 481 Pa. 540 , 393 A.2d 293 (1978), held that officials are protected by a qualified immunity. … Id. at 545 , 393 A.2d at 295 . 2 Section 1 of the Act of May 18, 1923, P.L. 259. 3 In Witt , this court held that consecutive Secretaries of Banking were protected from suit by the immunity established in *206 DuBree .

Pine v. Synkonis

79 Pa. Commw. 479 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1984

There was also evidence that damaged or missing guardrail had been left unrepaired for an extended period of time. 3 Qualified immunity Initially we must determine whether the Appellants are protected by the qualified immunity … In DuBree , the Court 4 analyzed prior law governing official immunity and established considerations for determining whether an official should be immune. These can be summarized as follows: 1.

Giddings v. Joseph Coleman Center

473 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2007

If a constitutional violation is found, the second inquiry of qualified immunity is whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established enough that it “would be clear to a reasonable [state official] that his conduct … Clear to a Reasonable Officer The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test asks whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established enough at the time of the violation that it “would be clear to a

Barber v. Lynch

275 Pa. Super. 333 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1980

and qualified privilege or immunity. … The preliminary objections of Appellees do not specifically use the term “qualified privilege” or “qualified immunity”.

Vines v. Howard

676 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1987

To be protected by qualified immunity, an official must establish that he acted in good faith, without intending to violate any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. … The constitutional right at issue must be clearly established. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 .

Poe v. Southeast Delco School District

165 F. Supp. 3d 271 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 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 Mosakowski if Plaintiffs have failed to allege she violated their constitutional rights or if Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a right that was not clearly established at the time of

Armstead v. Township of Upper Dublin

347 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2004

“[Qualified immunity is an objective question to be decided by the court as a matter of law. The jury, however, determines disputed historical facts material to the qualified immunity question.” Id. … Qualified Immunity Because plaintiff has established a constitutional violation, I must now consider whether Officer Lebby should nevertheless be shielded from liability because his actions did not violate “clearly established

Druckenmiller v. United States

553 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1982

Harlow modified the previously accepted method of testing defendants’ claims that their conduct was shielded by “good faith” or “qualified” immunity. … Although this issue, i.e., whether Harlow announced a rule which was not “clearly foreshadowed”, is not subject to facile resolution, we conclude that Harlow merely represents a modification in the law of qualified immunity

Ezenwa v. Gallen

906 F. Supp. 978 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1995

In contrast, if “the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he ‘could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.’ ” In re City of Philadelphia … the defense of qualified immunity.

G. B. List v. Commonwealth

118 Pa. 322 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1888

The privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each state in the several states, by this clause, are those privileges and immunities which are common to the citizens in the latter states under their constitution and … established in the case we have referred to,.

Grimm v. Borough of Norristown

226 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2002

Analysis of Qualified Immunity Defense We find that there are cases that clearly establish the substantive due process rights claimed by plaintiffs. See, e.g., Blanche Road Corp. v. … If the right is not clearly established in this sense, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. See Vaughn v. Ruoff, 253 F.3d 1124 , 1128 (8th Cir.2001). 29 .

I.H. v. Cumberland Valley School District

842 F. Supp. 2d 762 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2012

to qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Open Inns, Ltd. v. Chester County Sheriff's Department

24 F. Supp. 2d 410 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1998

Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 826-28 (3d Cir.1997) (holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity, it is not only the evidence of “clearly established law” that is for the court, but also whether a … 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 or statutory

Sabo v. O'BANNON

586 F. Supp. 1132 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1984

In their motions for summary judgments, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … If the law was not clearly established, the defendant should prevail on the basis of the qualified immunity defense unless the plaintiff claims that the official actually knew that he was violating the law.

Pansy v. Preate

870 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1994

The present case law establishes that qualified immunity shields all Defendants. … Qualified Immunity.

R.B. v. Enterline

304 F. Supp. 3d 456 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2018

The ultimate outcome for Benjamin remains the same, as I find that this constitutional violation did not become clearly established law in this Circuit until Mann v. … Qualified Immunity "Clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity means that 'the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

Mariana v. Fisher

226 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2002

A $50 million “enforcement” fund was established to finance enforcement of the Qualifying Statutes and the MSA. Pennsylvania’s Qualifying Statute is called the “Tobacco Settlement Agreement Act,” (“TSAA”), 35 Pa. Stat. … First, to qualify as state action, the restraint must be “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy.” Midcal, 445 U.S. at 104 , 100 S.Ct. 937 (citation omitted).