Case law

Muldrow v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

88 A.3d 269 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2014

SEPTA maintains that Eleventh Amendment immunity and state statutory immunity are two distinct concepts which do not share common origins or qualifying criteria. … The Supreme Court clearly distinguished between federal Eleventh *273 Amendment immunity and state statutory immunity, as follows: [S]tates cannot confer immunity on entities against a suit brought under federal law by mere

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.

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

Arditi v. Subers

216 F. Supp. 3d 544 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2016

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are immune from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … seizure is clearly established. 2.

McCarthy v. Dan Lepore & Sons Co., Inc.

724 A.2d 938 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1998

(“Lepore”), qualifies as a statutory employer. … Thus, the requisite vertical relationship between Heneo, Le-pore, and Hamada is established.

Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc.

2012 Pa. Super. 74 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2012

The Peck decision states that "we endorse the principle that, for purposes of Section 203 statutory employer immunity, statutory employer status should be found only where all five elements of the McDonald test are clearly … Peck, 814 A.2d at 189 (a general contractor who meets the McDonald test qualifies as the statutory employer and is immune from suit by the subcontractor's employee).

Hinkal, M. v. Pardoe, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2016

J-E03010-15 to be qualified to follow a doctor’s orders are in fact so qualified, and accept responsibility for their actions.” … the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is

Parsons v. City of Philadelphia Coordinating Office of Drug & Alcohol Abuse Programs

833 F. Supp. 1108 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1993

Once this has been established, the burden then shifts to the employer to establish a legitimate reason for taking the alleged discriminatory action. Weldon, 896 F.2d at 797 ; Lewis, 725 F.2d at 914 . … Once this has been established, it is up to the plaintiff to establish that the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason was merely pretextual. Weldon, 896 F.2d at 797 , Lewis, 725 F.2d at 914 .

Deivert v. Zartman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2025

Courts consider two prongs when determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established.” … Supp. 3d at 623; see also Thomas, 88 F.4th at 281 (holding that for qualified immunity purposes, a right must be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation).

DiJoseph v. City of Philadelphia

953 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1997

In DiJoseph I, I granted qualified immunity to Officers Mattiacci and Hairston because I found that the state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established law at the time the incidents in question occurred. … Hence, qualified immunity would not protect the trooper from suit.

Mertz Ex Rel. Mertz v. Houstoun

155 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2001

The MCCA amended the Medicaid Act to establish a mechanism to protect couples from being forced to deplete their assets to qualify for Medicaid. … Inc., 151 F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir.1998) (discussing distinction between Eleventh Amendment immunity and state sovereign immunity).

Wagner v. Waitlevertch

2001 Pa. Super. 100 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2001

Did the trial court err in dismissing the case before discovery could be conducted to determine the respective roles of the Defendants and whether or not either or both were entitled to qualified immunity? … Because we have concluded that Appellant failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights, we need not address Appellant’s second issue regarding Appellees’ defenses of qualified immunity.

Patrick v. Moorman

855 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2012

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether the Purported Right Was Clearly Established Even if we did not conclude that Moorman’s apprehension of Patrick satisfied the strictures of the Fourth Amendment, Moorman would still be entitled to qualified immunity

Com. v. Nunez, O.

2020 Pa. Super. 198 · 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.

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.

Patterson v. Bd. of Probation and Parole

851 F. Supp. 194 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 1994

Therefore, because the law forbidding such searches was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident, the officer in this case is entitled to qualified immunity. … I find that the constitutional right against arrest without probable cause is a “clearly established” one, and therefore defendant McGuire is not shielded by qualified immunity. Patzig v.

Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd.

584 Pa. 550 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2005

The Superior Court did not address the trial court’s finding that the gate qualified as land for purposes of RULWA immunity. … The Stantons did argue before the trial court that the swing-arm gate did not qualify as land for purposes of RULWA immunity. The trial court determined that it was a part of the land.

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.

Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

904 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 1995

Qualified Immunity Joint Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Christy’s claims. … To determine whether a public employee is entitled to qualified immunity, courts ask whether the right alleged to have been violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Norwegian Township v. Schuylkill County Board of Assessment Appeals

74 A.3d 1124 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2013

(holding that a good-faith effort to develop a property, including the expenditure of funds, qualifies that property for a tax exemption). … Though not required for a property to be tax-immune/exempt, the trial court also found that the Township made a good-faith effort to develop the Property (as established by the Township’s testimony that it had continued to