Case law

Bellmon v. City of Philadelphia

895 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2012

The City argues that the record clearly demonstrates that the patrol car struck the Plaintiff accidentally and that the officers acted reasonably in effecting the Plaintiffs arrest or, in the alternative, that qualified immunity … “The question is what the officer reasonably understood his powers and responsibilities to be, when he acted, under clearly established standards.” Saucier v.

Boyden v. Township of Upper Darby

5 F. Supp. 3d 731 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2014

Officer Sides[ ] is entitled to dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity.” Def. MTD at 7. … As the Supreme Court has explained, “the qualified-immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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.

Boyle, J. v. Meyer, J.

2025 Pa. Super. 198 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2025

Grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is proper “only when the moving party’s right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that the trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise.” Id. … Defendants contend that - 13 - J-A17017-25 the PREP Act establishes a liberal causation standard to invoke immunity, requiring only that a covered countermeasure has “played some

Briscoe v. Jackson

2 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2014

Qualified Immunity&emdash;Officers Jackson and Carr Government officials are extended qualified immunity in actions brought under section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Colon v. Colonial Intermediate Unit 20

443 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2006

The official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established when he acted, because the official cannot be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments. Id. … Next, defendant Karpen argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. To this extent, defendant Karpen claims that the plaintiffs have not cited to any clearly established “law” which he is alleged to have violated.

Brown v. Tucci

960 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2013

A federal right is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity if its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reason-' able official would understand that what he [or she] is doing violates that right.” … The inquiry relating to qualified immunity in this case must account for the question of whether the expressive activities engaged in by Brown “clearly” enjoyed constitutional protection under Pickering and Garcetti.

Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge

948 F. Supp. 1282 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1996

In Siegert , which dealt with the defense of qualified immunity, the Court noted that, In Harlow [v. … A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established” at-the time the defendant acted is the determination of whether the plaintiff has asserted

Rinderer v. Delaware County Children & Youth Services

703 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1987

established law. … Again, the record is too bare for me to determine whether Ansel is immune from suit by reason of qualified immunity with respect to Richard’s privacy claim. 1 .

Berry v. City of Philadelphia

188 F. Supp. 3d 464 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2016

Was the Right Clearly Established? Even when a plaintiff can show a violation of constitutional rights, qualified immunity may shield an officer from trial. Brosseau v. … Nassan, 556 Fed.Appx. 103, 108 (3d Cir.2014) (holding that Abraham remained good law that could clearly establish a constitutional right for the purpose of qualified immunity); Lamont, 637 F.3d at 185 (“Assuming (as we must

Seybold v. Gunther

393 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1975

While low public officials are entitled to a qualified or conditional immunity, the legal and factual standards upon which such immunity is based have not been clearly defined. … Obviously, were the Court to apply the rules of immunity set forth in Daye and Dwbree, third-party defendants Murphy and Lesko would clearly be immune from liability under tbe facts of this case.

Michalesko v. Freeland Borough

18 F. Supp. 3d 609 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials when performing “discretionary functions ... if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have … Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official *623 would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Figueroa v. Moyer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2022

Also, as Judge Carlson found, (Doc. 23 at 14, 21-CV-595), in rejecting Moyer Sr.’s motion arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity since “there is no clearly established law stating that government officials … Pa. 2017) (“At the pleading stage, ‘qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.’”) (citation omitted).

Lutz v. Lavelle

809 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1991

There is, however, some disagreement as to when a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity and when he is entitled to qualified immunity. The leading case on prosecutorial immunity is Imbler v. … A review of the record in the instant case reveals that Defendant Webb is entitled to qualified immunity. *327 It is a well established principle that State officials sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are entitled to qualified

Gross v. Cairo

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2022

Cairo has not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity requires a two-prong inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

Davila v. N. Reg'l Joint Police Bd.

370 F. Supp. 3d 498 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2019

"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 person … In deciding whether qualified immunity applies, a court must determine whether the facts that the claimant has shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was "clearly established"

Luck v. Mount Airy 1, LLC

901 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2012

Qualified immunity Commonwealth Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established .... ” Brown v.

Heron v. City of Philadelphia

987 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendant’s second argument with regard to plaintiffs assertion of lack of probable cause is that Officers Young and Scott are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The basic rule of qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Reading Area Water Authority

937 A.2d 1173 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2007

Latrobe Municipal Authority, 913 A.2d 988 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), the trial court determined that a per se violation of the Act does not create a dangerous condition of Reading’s facilities, so as to qualify under the exception … Clearly, the dangerous condition, as alleged, originated with the conduct of Reading’s employees.

Isbell v. Bellino

962 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2013

A state actor *749 “sued in Ms individual capacity enjoys qualified immunity if Ms conduct does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … could thus not be clearly established for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis.