Case law

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).

Telepo v. Palmer Township

40 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1999

applicability of qualified immunity is well-settled: Government officials performing discretionary functions are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Under this test, in section 1983 actions, particularly those involving the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity decisions require the Court to determine the currently applicable law, and whether that law was clearly established

Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien, and Frankel

792 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1992

in its immunity analysis whether defendants violated a clearly established right in confessing judgment, and should have considered "the validity of the underlying confessed judgment.” … The point is not material, however, to whether defendants enjoy qualified immunity. 4 .

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 .

Yoder, J., Aplt. v. McCarthy Const.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2025

We then must determine whether “the Superior Court failed to properly apply the facts that must be strictly established under McDonald . . . for a general contractor to qualify as a statutory employer in the light most … Thus, in Yoder’s view, if an employer establishes that it is a statutory employer under Section 302(a) or (b), then the statutory employer is immune from common law actions in tort for negligence under Section 203.

Imhoff v. Temas

67 F. Supp. 3d 700 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2014

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity where their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendants make a cursory and broad sweeping claim to their entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the allegations are insufficient to establish that any Defendant knowingly violated a clearly established constitutional

Rogers v. Mount Union Borough Ex Rel. Zook

816 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1993

Officials exercising discretionary powers are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Defendants, then, may not rely on qualified immunity to shield them from plaintiffs title VII claim. 6 IX Defendants argue that the Borough of Mount Union itself is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

McAndrew v. Bucks County Board of Commissioners

982 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2013

Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply Qualified immunity “shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … The qualified immunity inquiry focuses on whether the right is clearly established such that a “reasonable person” would have known that the person’s actions violated the constitution or a statute.

Malone v. ECONOMY BOROUGH MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY

669 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity. … his or her actions violated clearly established law.”

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.

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.

Nelson v. Mattern

844 F. Supp. 216 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1994

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity depends on the reasonableness of the conclusion that the force used was not excessive.

Lach v. Robb

679 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1988

The relevant inquiry is the objective question whether a reasonable officer could have believed the defendant’s action to be lawful, in light of clearly established law. Id. at -, 107 S.Ct. at 3040 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 532 . … Because the university security officers have qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim, they are entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 claim.

Hinterberger v. Iroquois School District

898 F. Supp. 2d 772 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2012

Because the constitutional right at issue here was clearly established as of March 3, 2004, Loftus’ assertion of qualified immunity must be denied. … Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 321 (3d Cir.2001) (“District court opinions may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified immunity analysis.”).

Barnard v. Lackawanna County

194 F. Supp. 3d 337 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2016

Judgment will be granted if “the movant clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir.2005). … from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

GUERRIER v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2021

and Commonwealth Defendants consented, therefore establishing federal jurisdiction by consenting to litigate in a federal forum. … App’x. 47, 48 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding a Pennsylvania State Trooper sued in his official capacity qualified for Eleventh Amendment immunity).

Moses v. McWilliams

379 Pa. Super. 150 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1988

The invasion of privacy is actionable when there is an unreasonable and serious interference with one’s privacy interest. 9 Nonetheless, an individual’s right to privacy is clearly qualified when that individual has filed … well established in English common law. ...

Repko v. Chichester School District

904 A.2d 1036 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2006

Lienhard, the Supreme Court clearly established the test: Chattels used in connection with real estate are of three classes: First, those which are manifestly furniture, as distinguished from improvements, and not peculiarly … Contrary to the trial court’s interpretation of Grieff that the government entity was not immune because “the care of personalty caused a dangerous condition to occur on the real property,” the actual holding in Grieff clearly

McKibben v. Schmotzer

700 A.2d 484 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 1997

Her exercise of “significant policy-making functions as the most important public official in the Borough of [Dormont, Mayor Schmotzer] clearly qualifies as a ‘high public official’ under the criteria established in Montgomery … Lindner, 677 A.2d at 1199 (Mayor of Yeadon qualifies as a “high public official”).

Shrey v. Kontz

981 F. Supp. 2d 333 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2013

Qualified Immunity Our Supreme Court in Saucier v. … and second, whether that right was clearly established. 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).