Case law

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.

Shultz v. Carlisle Police Department

706 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2010

Mistakes about the governing legal standard can be evidence that the right is not clearly established: “qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably … As such, the qualified immunity defense is unavailable in these circumstances. C.

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.

Rogers v. United States

696 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2010

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 privilege of qualified immunity, however, can be overcome when state officials violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v.

Moody v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

673 A.2d 14 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1996

The question in determining the existence of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable person could have believed the defendant’s action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed. … Therefore, Appellant, had he raised and preserved the issue of qualified immunity, would not have been entitled to that defense because he did not reasonably rely on existing law.

Celec v. Edinboro University

132 F. Supp. 3d 651 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2015

Dist., 800 F.3d 633 , 637-39 and n. 4 (3d Cir.2015) (discussing general principles of qualified immunity defense). … See Spady, supra, at 639 ("In order for a right to be clearly established there must be applicable precedent from the Supreme Court ...”).

Boykin v. Bloomsburg University

893 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1995

In order to hold Kreisher liable, the Boykins must override his qualified immunity by showing that, as a government official acting in a discretionary capacity, Kreisher violated a clearly established statutory and constitutional … The determination of whether the actions of Kreisher violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights is a pure question of law. See Medina v.

Konopka v. Borough of Wyoming

383 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2005

Accordingly, the Court finds that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of Defendant Ra-gantesi’s actions. Consequently, Defendant Ragantesi is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Defendant Burda is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Burton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes that (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional … When viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Burton, the qualified immunity question becomes whether it was clearly established that continuing to 70 Sherwood v.

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

Bollinger v. OBRECHT

122 Pa. Commw. 562 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1989

as it rested upon the particular nature of the qualified immunity doctrine for federal officials. … Under federal case law, a federal official is immune for his harmful actions if the conduct does not violate a “clearly established law.”

Gilius v. Bd. of Supv., Fairview T.

122 Pa. Commw. 371 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1988

Here, the negligence counts of the landowners’ complaint are clearly barred by Subchapter C. The Board is a local agency for the purposes of Subchapter C. … These counts clearly sound in tort, because in essence they charge that the Board, acting through its agent, Mr.

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.

Hutchings v. Erie City & County Library Board of Directors

516 F. Supp. 1265 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1981

Admittedly, in appropriate instances, certain defendants in civil rights actions can be shielded from liability for damages by asserting a qualified good faith immunity defense. See, Wood v. … Therefore, we conclude that this affidavit by itself, is not sufficient to establish a good faith immunity defense for all of the defendants in this action.

Benjamin v. Fassnacht

39 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2014

A defendant bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 , 142 n. 15 (3d Cir.2001). … A right is “clearly established” for pur poses of qualified immunity if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.”

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.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A/S/O JC Investment, Inc. Restaurant Development, LLC v. JPC Group, Inc.

157 A.3d 1 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2017

JPC Group asserted in its answer with new matter, inter alia, that State Farm’s claims were barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … On July 7, 2015, State Farm filed a motion in limine with the trial court to preclude JPC Group from presenting evidence on its asserted defense of qualified immunity.

Martin v. City of Reading

118 F. Supp. 3d 751 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2015

Qualified immunity protects an official from a suit for money damages unless a plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … For Defendant Errington, there are material issues of fact bearing on his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Deforte v. Borough of Worthington

364 F. Supp. 3d 458 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2019

Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity "shield[s] officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." Pearson v. … As explained below, Defendants are entitled to Qualified Immunity and to summary judgment on the merits, because even though Plaintiff's right not to be charged based on fabricated evidence was clearly established as of 2012

Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC. v. Decker

674 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2009

If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, 37 then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Williams v. … As stated above, "if the court concludes that the defendant's conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity.”