Case law

T. Gardner v. T. Wealand & J. Fustine

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 2026

Federal qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … See R.R. at 284. 11 While he mentions “qualified immunity under federal law” in the heading of the immunity argument section of his brief, see Appellant’s Brief at 22, we note that Appellant bases his immunity

Ballas v. City of Reading

153 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendant Pena reasserts qualified immunity to Count II on the basis that the evidence fails to establish a knowing violation of the law or that his actions were objectively unreasonable. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Seneway v. Canon McMillan School District

969 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1997

Qualified immunity entitles governmental officials performing discretionary functions to immunity when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Consistent with this established law, Plaintiffs allegations in this case rise to the level of violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

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).

McKenna v. City of Philadelphia

771 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 1991

immunity; and fourth, that George Hayes is not entitled to immunity because he violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff to be free of an unreasonable search. … Government officials performing discretionary functions will be immune from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person

Deritis v. Roger

165 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2016

Qualified Immunity Government officials are protected from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. 70 *245 The Supreme Court has mandated a two-step … inquiry to evaluate whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. 71 Courts must determine whether a defendant has violated a constitutional right and whether this right was clearly established at the

Suber v. Guinta

902 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2012

Qualified Immunity The defendant Officers seek to dismiss plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. … “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.’ ” Yarris v.

Constitutional Guided Walking Tours, LLC v. Independence Visitor Center Corp.

804 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2011

at issue was clearly established.” … Said Defendants would therefore be entitled to qualified immunity on this basis.

Moeck v. Pleasant Valley School District

983 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2013

Qualified immunity does not apply where state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … 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. Id.

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

Daniels v. County of Chester, Tax Claims Bureau (In Re Daniels)

304 B.R. 695 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2003

Government officials, performing discretionary functions, are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Bair is entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs Section 1983 action for damages will depend on whether she is able to show that her conduct did not violate clearly established *710 statutory or constitutional rights

Fischer v. KASSAB

32 Pa. Commw. 581 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1977

He also “[participates in formulating overall Department objectives and policies and in establishing the short and long-range improvements for the State Highway system.” While this is by no means the limit of Mr. … Burke, Superintendent of the Parole Division of the Board of Probation and Parole, clearly an officer of the Commonwealth as we have defined it.

Russoli v. Salisbury Township

126 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2000

The Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To determine whether the Officers have qualified immunity, we must ask whether a reasonable Officer could have believed the force used to be reasonable in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.

MARCAVAGE v. National Park Service

777 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2011

We must also inquire “whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.” Id. Unless both prongs are satisfied, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Saperstein and Crane are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that Marcavage’s claim under the First Amendment was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

845 F. Supp. 1097 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1994

Qualified immunity may thus be properly invoked to protect governmental officials performing discretionary functions to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Christy’s clearly established rights or that they are entitled to the cloak of qualified immunity from this suit. The motions for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity from suit must therefore be denied.

Hernandez v. Whitesell

462 F. Supp. 569 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 1978

But it is well established that waiver of sovereign immunity alone is not enough to justify the exercise of federal jurisdiction over a claim against a state; it must clearly appear that the state has consented to suit in … The Court viewed sovereign immunity as a common law doctrine, established by judicial decision, and therefore subject to modification by judicial decision.

Wolfe v. Horn

130 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2001

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages if their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227-28 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (qualified immunity analysis considers what reasonable officer could have believed in light of clearly established law and information officer possessed

Fleck v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

995 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects governmental officials when they are sued in their personal capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The contours of clearly established rights in the context of qualified immunity are not always sharply drawn.

O'Donnell v. Cumberland County

195 F. Supp. 3d 724 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2016

“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 conduct.” … Thus, only where a plaintiff “fails to state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, [is] a defendant pleading qualified immunity ... entitled to dismissal .before the commencement of discovery.” Id.

Gray v. Great Valley School District

102 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2015

The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps: “(1) whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … Thus,, whether Trimble is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of her actions. Estate of Lagano, 769 F.3d at 858 . The Court concludes that it was.