Case law

Hanks v. County of Delaware

518 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2007

The qualified immunity defense is twofold. … To evaluate this proposition, I move to the second prong of qualified immunity and inquire whether Officer Sabillon’s conduct would have been clearly unlawful to a reasonable officer in his situation.

Lang v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency

201 F. Supp. 3d 613 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2016

Plaintiffs additionally argue in their motion that even if the Court finds issue preclusion to not apply, that PHEAA has not met its burden to establish it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. … In sum, both circuits’ tests clearly require courts to examine all of a state’s constitutional provisions, statutes, and regulations bearing on an entity in determining whether it qualifies as an arm of the state.

Democracy Rising PA v. Celluci

603 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2009

Individual Liability & Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed constitutional violations if the plaintiffs rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. … The court finds that in 2007 plaintiffs’ rights were not clearly established. Therefore, the court concludes that defendants are properly shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Matta v. Burton

721 A.2d 1164 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1998

As such, they were not *1167 related to her position as mayor and thus not protected by absolute immunity. … And Burton’s criticism of Matta’s handling of the contract falls within the scope of her duties and authority because the public clearly has a right to be informed of possible mismanagement by Matta of a $13.5 million school

WALKER-SERRANO BY WALKER v. Leonard

168 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2001

It is a well-established legal principle that government officials may enjoy qualified immunity from suit. … was clearly established.

Burns v. County of Cambria, Pa.

764 F. Supp. 1031 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1991

A government official will be denied qualified immunity for having violated a clearly established right when “in light of preexisting law the unlawfulness [is] apparent.” Anderson, 107 S.Ct. at 3039 . … The grant of qualified immunity to the defendants properly depends upon whether the plaintiffs’ right to be free from politically based firings was clearly established. In People of Three Mile Island v. Nuclear Reg.

McCachren v. Blacklick Valley School District

217 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2002

They first claim that they enjoy qualified immunity from a suit of this kind. … This alleged involvement in conduct that violates established law is sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage to defeat the individual defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Garner v. Meoli

19 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1998

The Court will not disturb the verdict. 3 As to the issue of the defendants’ qualified immunity, it is well established that qualified immunity is a question of law for the Court and that the issue of what law was “clearly … There would be no need to charge on clearly established law. Mr. Hanna: Well, that, in effect, would be the clearly established law. Id. at 117-18.

Arnold v. City of Philadelphia

151 F. Supp. 3d 568 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified ■ immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the' official: (1) violated a statutory or .constitutional right; and, (2) the right was clearly established at the … Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

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.

Strickland v. Mahoning Township

647 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2009

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 officials violated a constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Id.

Allah v. Al-Hafeez

208 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2002

on the basis of qualified immunity. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages unless a reasonable official in his position would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Anderson v.

Brown v. Stewart

910 F. Supp. 1064 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1996

“Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if the applicable law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation.” Karnes v. … Kozakiewicz responds that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions violated no clearly established constitutional right. County Defs’ Br. at 9-10. Supervisory liability exists under section 1983.

Hayes v. Erie County Office of Children and Youth

497 F. Supp. 2d 684 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2007

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.” Harlow v. … If the right was not clearly established, however, then the official is entitled to qualified immunity, and the plaintiffs claim must be dismissed.

Portnoy v. Pennick

595 F. Supp. 1000 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1984

Additionally, the Supreme Court pointed out that the qualified immunity granted officials who perform discretionary functions can be avoided only if the officials act contrary to clearly established statutory or constitutional … These provisions clearly and unequivocally grant an employee additional rights. Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Sterling v.

Raitport v. Provident National Bank

451 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1978

However, “[t]he fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” … Both Sullivan and Carrafiello may well enjoy qualified, or “good-faith,” immunity, which is quite another matter. See note 3 supra. 5 .

Hyman v. Capital One Auto Fin.

306 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2018

Defendants Devlin and Morris Are Not Shielded By Qualified Immunity 14 "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Kenworthy v. Hargrove

826 F. Supp. 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1993

Finally, Hargrove argues that the issue of her entitlement to qualified immunity meets the criteria for certification. … Therefore, assuming Hargrove took such actions, she violated clearly established due process rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Preiser v. Rosenzweig

538 Pa. 139 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1994

Common law accords an absolute privilege of immunity to statements, whether defamatory or not, to pleadings and other papers filed in regular judicial proceedings. … The defendant’s words were held to be subject to a qualified privilege. The proceeding was clearly private in nature.

Walsh v. Borczon

2005 Pa. Super. 256 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2005

Vincent Hospital’s (“hospital’s”) motions for summary judgment based upon the qualified immunity the Act affords mental health care providers unless they have committed gross negligence; and whether patient has waived her … challenge to physician’s claim to a qualified immunity under the Act by failing to raise that argument in opposition to physician’s motion for summary judgment.