Case law

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

Kegerise v. Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dist.

325 F. Supp. 3d 564 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2018

As a threshold matter, the Court first addresses the applicability of qualified immunity infra . 1. … Legal Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity provides "that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Proudfoot v. Williams

803 F. Supp. 1048 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1992

Qualified immunity insulates state actors from liability if they could have reasonably believed that the action was constitutionally valid in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … Because defendant Witman did not act with an improper motive and because he did not violate clearly established legal principles, he is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity and judgment will be entered in his favor

Hughesville Borough School District v. Wolf Township School District

40 Pa. Super. 311 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1909

That is, if a township without a high school were surrounded by two or more townships in which there were high schools, the children qualified for entrance to the high school which they propose to attend would be entitled … Seldom do we find a title to an act of assembly which more clearly indicates its scope and contents than the one under consideration.

Ginsburg v. Kovrak

11 Pa. D. & C.2d 615 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 14, 1957

Admittedly there is none in the matter of qualifying Federal attorneys by any exclusively Federal system of education or supervision. … Merely because the Federal courtrooms are open does not mean that the Federal courts have approved anyone as a qualified lawyer. The most it means is that a man may practice there if he is qualified by local law.

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.

Witter v. Pennsylvania National Guard

462 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1978

Nothing in this chapter shall excuse noncompliance with any statute or ordinance of a State or political subdivision thereof establishing greater or additional rights or protections than the rights and protections established … Furthermore, the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, as defined in Edelman v.

Higgins v. BOROUGH OF TAYLOR

551 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2008

In any case, qualified immunity for police officers “absolves defendants if reasonable officers could have believed their conduct was lawful ‘in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers … Determining whether qualified immunity applies is a two “step process:” “[fjirst, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights ...

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Fulton County

195 Pa. Super. 517 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1961

It is generally true, that all property not clearly exempt from taxation and within the purview of taxing statutes is subject to tax'. … To qualify, therefore, for *521 tax exemption it must be established that the property is being used for a public purpose and, while a declaration by the legislature as to the existence of a public purpose is entitled to

Burns v. Alexander

776 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2011

In order for a right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, its contours must be “sufficiently clear” to enable an objectively reasonable official to understand that what he or she is doing violates … Having alleged a violation of her procedural due process rights, Burns can overcome Hart’s defense of qualified immunity “only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.”

Verney v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

903 F. Supp. 826 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1995

Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for any actions they took with respect to Plaintiffs discharge. 11 The test for qualified immunity was announced by the … We have already determined that Plaintiff did not have a “clearly established constitutional right” in employment with the Commission.

Geronimo, J. v. Commonwealth Environmental Systems

2026 Pa. Super. 56 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2026

See Appellee brief at 13- 14, 16-17.5 For the following reasons, we agree that CES failed to establish either of the “importance” or the “irreparable loss” prongs of the collateral order doctrine. … For all the foregoing reasons, the trial court's order denying the joint request for a stay does not qualify as a collateral order. Appeal quashed.

In Re City of Philadelphia Litigation

849 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1994

The court concluded that there was no “clearly established law” to lead to the conclusion that such a “burnout” as a means of forcing a fugitive out would violate the constitutional right of that person, that is, the fugitive … In their answers, the defendants asserted affirmative defenses which included qualified immunity.

Daryl v. Boyd

881 F. Supp. 171 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1995

Boyd has chosen to counter Cook’s, claims here by arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Though qualified immunity is meant to protect “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,” Malley v.

Gustafson, M. v. Springfield, Inc.

2020 Pa. Super. 239 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2020

Thus, the plain text of the PLCAA dictates that either the gun industry has immunity from the entire lawsuit or no immunity at all. The Act does not immunize the industry from individual causes of action. … Once PLCAA immunity attaches to a qualified product under Section 7903(4), that immunity lasts into perpetuity, even if the product has ceased its transportation, injures someone who never entered any commercial transaction

Borrell v. Bloomsburg University

63 F. Supp. 3d 418 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2014

“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 … Richer did not seek summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, nor did he ' oppose Borrell’s motion on qualified immunity grounds.

Geist v. Ammary

40 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

Qualified immunity is intended to shield government *483 officials performing discretionary functions, including police officers, “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … If one part of the analysis is met, then qualified immunity may be available. See id. at 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (finding that qualified immunity available because no violation of clearly established law). .

Beam v. Daihl

2001 Pa. Super. 21 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2001

. § 1515(4) clearly states that district justices have jurisdiction to issue warrants. … Thus, the doctrine of judicial immunity bars appellant’s civil action against appel-lee.

Lynch v. City of Philadelphia

166 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2001

Public officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which … The main issue regarding the Defendant’s claim is whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established. “ ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently

Read v. Clearfield County

12 Pa. Super. 419 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1900

There is no doubt that there would have been but one subject in the title, and that clearly expressed. … This is the rule established by all our cases. It is an application of the maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius.