Case law

Booth v. King

346 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2004

Qualified, Immunity PPS defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 17-18.) Under Saucier v. … Second, was the right clearly established?

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.

Hicks, Ex Rel. Hicks v. Purchase Line School Dist.

251 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants finally argue that the individual defendants, district administrators, are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants argument that John’s rights under IDEA were not clearly established because they were allegedly unaware that he suffered from a disability misses the point.

Estate of Cooper by and Through Cooper v. Leamer

705 F. Supp. 1081 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1989

Merits of the Civil Rights Claims/Qualified Immunity: Count IV The defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs' civil rights claims on the merits and because of qualified immunity. … 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.

Montgomery v. Philadelphia

392 Pa. 178 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1958

Whereas qualified privilege could be successful only after a full trial, thus placing a government official at the whims and mercy of a jury, the purpose of absolute immunity is to foreclose the possibility of suit. “. . … “It has been argued, however, that free disclosure would be sufficiently encouraged by the granting of a qualified privilege.

Walker-Serrano ex rel. 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.

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

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. City of Philadelphia

627 Pa. 470 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2014

The • court concluded: “Clearly then, as an agency and instrumentality of the Commonwealth, SEPTA qualifies as an ‘employer’ for purposes of the [Human Relations] Act, subject to the jurisdiction of the [Pennsylvania Human … The fact that the Commonwealth Court did not employ the magic words — sovereign immunity — is of no consequence, as the court clearly recognized SEPTA’s enabling statute and its existence as a Commonwealth Agency subject

Walthour v. Miller

795 F. Supp. 2d 317 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2011

The law regarding qualified immunity is well-established. As the Third Circuit stated in Lamont v. … Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established any genuine issues of material fact.

Weiser v. H.H. Robertson Co.

20 Pa. D. & C.3d 755 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 30, 1981

It is clearly established in Pennsylvania that both the immediate (actual) employer and general contractor (statutory employer) are immunized from common-law liability. … The question whether a subcontractor also qualifies for a statutory employer defense has not yet been clearly determined. *757 In Rieffer v. Walsh Construction Co., 140 F. Supp.

Jones, B. v. McGreevy, D.

270 A.3d 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2022

This claim is meritless, as the record clearly establishes that McGreevy was the sole beneficiary and sole trustee of the separate share trust created by his deceased father. … immune and exempt from attachment, levy and execution.

Kapil v. Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties

504 Pa. 92 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1983

Thus, it would have been barred if the immunity of Act 152 applied. … Such a dispute falls clearly within the public policy of the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA), Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, No. 195, 43 Pa.C. S.A. § 1101.101, et seq.

Glenn v. Horan

765 A.2d 426 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 2001

Specifically, the Township asserts (1) that Glenn’s complaint is legally insufficient because she failed to allege any facts in her complaint to establish a prima facie case, and (2) that the Township is immune from suit … Philadelphia Law Department —Claims Division, 721 A.2d 65 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (nylon rope designed to control pedestrians qualified as a traffic control for governmental immunity purposes).

Eichelman v. Lancaster County

510 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2007

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 , 197 & n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) *387 (an official does not lose qualified immunity if her conduct violated clearly established state law where the conduct did not violate clearly … Individual municipal officials named in a § 1983 action in their individual or personal capacities enjoy qualified immunity from liability under § 1983 so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

McNeil v. City of Easton

694 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2010

Qualified Immunity The defendant officers contend that qualified immunity shields them from plaintiffs Section 1983 claims. … ’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right....

Jackson v. Dallas School District

954 F. Supp. 2d 304 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 2013

The law provides: The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government officials who are performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Thus, to decide the issue of qualified immunity, we must determine if the facts alleged show a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Malia Et Ux. v. Monchak

116 Pa. Commw. 484 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1988

No underlying facts were pleaded which, if proven, would establish, or from which it could be inferred, that Monchak was acting maliciously or that Vollbrecht knew she was. See Thorpe. … However, the cases cited in Acker clearly have not interpreted section 8550 in that manner.

Porter v. City of Phila.

337 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2018

of persuasive authority' in the Court of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." … As in Monteiro , Porter's First Amendment rights were clearly established. Accordingly, Chew is not entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

Draper v. Darby Township Police Department

777 F. Supp. 2d 850 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2011

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 … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

McBride v. Cahoone

820 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2011

Qualified Immunity With Respect To Probation Officer Don Cahoone Under the qualified immunity principle, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar … We analyze two issues when evaluating a qualified immunity question: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly