Case law

Marshall v. Borough of Ambridge

798 F. Supp. 1187 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1992

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.”

Faust v. Com., Dept. of Revenue

140 Pa. Commw. 389 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 1991

However, it is well established that sovereign immunity is the law in Pennsylvania and is grounded in Article 1, § 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. E-Z Parks, 110 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 635-636, 532 A.2d at 1276 . … Clearly, the defendant-appellees enjoy the immunity provided by 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310. Further, intentional tort claims and civil rights actions are not within the narrow exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b).

Behm v. Luzerne County Children & Youth Policy Makers

172 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2001

First, qualified immunity shields officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wilson v. … Second, even when a violation of a constitutional right has been clearly established, an official may be entitled to qualified immunity where “a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in

Long v. Holtry

673 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2009

of qualified immunity. … Even where a government official has violated the constitution, he may be shielded from liability by qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.

Heuchert v. State Harness Racing Commission

403 Pa. 440 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1961

Granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive privilege or immunity . . .’ … is required is a majority of those actually voting, unless a contrary legislative intention and purpose is very clearly expressed. ...

Pelagatti v. Cohen

370 Pa. Super. 422 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1987

As such, they enjoy a qualified immunity only: in the interests of keeping the public informed, newspaper articles are entitled to make fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings and involved parties, witnesses, and … However, the media statements disseminated by Marion, Harvey, and Magarity, even in their reiteration of the contents of privileged judicial documents, were extra-judicial communications protected by a qualified immunity

Holly v. Rapone

476 F. Supp. 226 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1979

Defendants May Rely On The Affirmative Defense Of Qualified “Good Faith” Immunity It has been established without question that prison officials and officers are entitled to qualified, rather than absolute immunity, in the … Nevertheless, the immunity defense would be unavailing if: (1) the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, they knew or should have known of the

Barkley v. Westmoreland County Children's Bureau

853 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 2012

Qualified Immunity Finally, County Defendants’ claim that all of their actions were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity bars the assertion of constitutional liability against government officials, unless they violated a clearly-established statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable person in the

Black Hawk v. Pennsylvania

225 F. Supp. 2d 465 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Where the defense of qualified immunity is asserted, the plaintiff shoulders the initial burden of showing that the challenged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Sherwood v.

Mitros v. Borough of Glenolden

170 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2001

immunity. 4 Government officials have qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The defendant has the burden of pleading and proving qualified immunity. 5 Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Osiris Enterprises v. Borough of Whitehall

877 A.2d 560 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2005

Accordingly, we first must consider whether Defendants, as members of Borough Council, qualify as “high public officials.” In Hall v. … Because the candid discussion and determination of the “non-responsibility” of bidding contractors is clearly part of the performance of a Borough Council member’s official duties, Defendants’ actions fall within the scope

Quinn v. Cunningham

879 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1995

“extra hours” for “extra work” after filing his grievance; and (3) that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Kelly v. Thackray Crane Rental, Inc.

2005 Pa. Super. 169 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2005

In McDonald , the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania established the test for determining whether a party qualifies as a statutory employer under Section 203 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. … According to the McDonald Court, a party must establish the following elements to qualify as a statutory employer: (1) An employer who is under contract with an owner or one in the position of an owner. (2) Premises occupied

Davila v. Northern Regional Joint Police Board

979 F. Supp. 2d 612 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2013

A government official, such as a police officer, will be entitled to claim qualified immunity from suit unless (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right possessed by the plaintiff and (2) the right was “clearly … Because qualified immunity is not merely a defense to liability, but renders a defendant completely immune to suit, a court should determine at the earliest possible *627 stage whether a grant of qualified immunity would

Pennsylvania State University v. Derry Township School District

711 A.2d 615 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1998

In doing so, PSU clearly qualifies as a Commonwealth instrumentality, defined by this court as follows: we must interpret the phrase ‘instrumentality of the Commonwealth’ according to its common and approved usage as required … Here, [PSU] utilizes the six parcels to operate its College of Medicine, clearly within the stated purpose of a university.

Costopoulos v. Gibboney

1 Pa. D. & C.4th 303 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Perry County · Dec 2, 1988

These are: (78) Defendants violated no clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff and are therefore immune from money damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983 . • (80) Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested on June 11, 1977 … It is our opinion, therefore, that both the state and federal actions are governed by qualified immunity.

Boettger v. Miklich

142 Pa. Commw. 136 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1992

This interpretation of a qualified or good faith immunity is clearly at odds with an interpretation which holds that a good faith defense is never available to acts arising from a misinterpretation of a statute. 12 This Court … therefore follows the law of qualified immunity now established by the United States Supreme Court, and in so doing gives deference to the relevant legislative history of the Act cited by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in

Com. v. Nunez, O.

238 A.3d 420 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2020

Further, “[t]he burden of proof under the [Act] is not on the Commonwealth; rather, the defendant must establish that he is entitled to immunity under the Act.” Commonwealth v. … In sum, because Appellant did not qualify for immunity under the Act, the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss. We therefore affirm his judgment of sentence.

Brogan v. Tunkhannock Twp.

302 F. Supp. 3d 670 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2018

"Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established … Pa. 2009) ("The court may eschew difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant

Saunders v. Horn

960 F. Supp. 893 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1997

established that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act apply to state prisons, and, consequently, the defendant prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity under these statutes. 6 The Torcasio court’s primary reason … In reliance on Torcasio , one district court in this circuit has also held, in the context of qualified immunity, that it is not “clearly established” that the Rehabilitation Act applies to correctional facilities.