Case law

Gay v. Merritt

574 F. Supp. 105 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 1983

immunity under § 1983. … Defendant would then have to show that his conduct did not, under the circumstances presented, violate plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v.

Verney v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

881 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1995

The test for qualified immunity was set forth by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … “However, a motion to dismiss based on the defense of qualified 'immunity will prevail only if the actor’s immunity ié clear from the face of the complaint.” Roberts v.

Lines v. Wargo

271 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2003

The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … The analytical framework that district courts should employ in determining whether qualified immunity applies is clearly established: The Court explained that a qualified immunity analysis must begin with this threshold question

BRYANT v. POTTSGROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2025

Lucas’ argument flips the qualified immunity burden. Qualified immunity is not, as Lucas characterizes it, a “shield” that Bryant must “remove” by pleading a violation of clearly law established law. … Nor is “qualified immunity” a “a talismanic phrase that relieves Defendants of their burden to show that their actions did not violate . . . clearly established constitutional [or statutory] rights.” Jennings v.

Brickell v. Clinton County Prison Board

658 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2009

Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Saucier v. Katz has mandated a two-step analysis concerning qualified immunity. … Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity, as they did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Tate v. West Norriton Township

545 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2008

The qualified immunity defense may shield Patrolman Delaney from liability to the extent his actions came in the line of duty and were not in violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … to the qualified immunity defense if, in violating the plaintiffs clearly established right, the officer “made a reasonable mistake about what the law requires.” 36 The availability of the defense is a question of law, to

Egervary v. Young

159 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2001

Qualified Immunity.160 1. Due Process Violation.160 a. Liberty Interest.161 b. The Constitutional Sufficiency of the Process.162 2. Clearly Established Right.164 a. Federal Law as of May 1994 .164 b. … Clearly Established Right The federal defendants are entitled to quahfied immunity if they did not violate a “clearly established” right “of which a reasonable person would have known.”

K.L. v. Southeast Delco School District

828 F. Supp. 1192 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1993

Qualified Immunity In C.M., I relied on Stoneking in holding that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. … If the rights were clearly established by the late 1970’s or early 1980’s, as those cases held, then obviously they were clearly established by 1987. Defendants argue that C.M.

Layshock Ex Rel. Layshock v. Hermitage School District

496 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2007

Plaintiffs further contend that the Court should deny qualified immunity to the individually-named Defendants because the relevant law is clearly established. Pursuant to Saucier v. … A right is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are sufficiently clear that reasonable officials would know that their actions violated that right. Williams v.

Schwartz v. County of Montgomery

823 F. Supp. 296 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1993

Defendants, in turn, submit that inasmuch as they are immune from suit under the doc-’ trines of absolute and qualified immunity, judgment is properly entered at this time in their favor as a matter of law dismissing Plaintiffs … Qualified immunity is the more limited type of immunity and generally protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Neuburger v. Thompson

305 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2004

Pleasant, 142 F.3d 898, 902 (6th Cir.1998) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for the violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … Connor as authority establishing Ms. Neuburger’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force.

Simko v. County of Allegheny

869 A.2d 571 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2005

The Court concluded a contrary holding could expose the Commonwealth to unlimited liability, a result clearly not intended by the legislature in enacting the immunity statute. Id. at 512, n. 9 , 751 A.2d at 1134, n. 9. … ruling, it is unnecessary for us to address the Representatives' other arguments that: a) Gills’ aortic aneurysm rupture was a superseding cause such as would relieve the County of liability, and, b) Corrigan Drive would qualify

Lacey v. Borough of Darby, Pa.

618 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1985

Defendants invoked the defense of qualified immunity. … The Third Circuit held that the sole inquiry relevant to the qualified immunity issue was “whether Losch had clearly established rights to petition the government in the manner that he did and to be free of malicious prosecution

Thompson v. Wagner

631 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2008

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is … In this case, the qualified immunity inquiry is relatively simple.

Zizza v. Dresher Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

358 Pa. Super. 600 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1986

JOHNSON, Judge: We are asked to determine whether the owner of a construction site and the contractor on that site qualify as statutory employers of a subcontractor’s employee, and are thus immune from an action at law for … Appellant Zizza seems to argue in his brief that Dresher must establish both control and occupancy of the Cromby site in order to qualify as a statutory employer of Zizza. Such is not the case.

Arthurs v. Beard

623 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2009

“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 … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). % & if: # % “[Cjlearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable

Presley v. Morrison

950 F. Supp. 1298 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1996

Therefore Morrison, a probation officer acting in his capacity as such, is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity, which he has asserted. Under the protection of qualified immunity! … light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Fitzgerald v. Cnty. of Lehigh

381 F. Supp. 3d 443 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2019

Even if the Detectives' behavior violated Fitzgerald's Fourth Amendment rights, they did not violate clearly established law at the time of the incident and *459 are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because such rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Matarazzo v. Millers Mutual Group, Inc.

927 A.2d 689 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2007

Our court reversed, holding that the allegations and inferences were sufficient to state a cause of action based on promissory estop-pel. 4 Plaintiffs here assert that the holding in Travers establishes that the immunity … Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief; any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer.

Joner v. Board of Education

91 Pa. Commw. 145 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1985

Regardless of whether' the Appellant has alleged facts which would have otherwise qualified her claim under an exception to governmental immunity, and we do not now decide whether she has done so, she has not alleged facts … Clearly Vann does not establish such a rule, but establishes only that, under the facts as pleaded in that case, the criminal acts were not a foreseeable use of school property as a matter of law. See Bersani v.