Case law

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.

Bliss v. Allentown Public Library

534 F. Supp. 356 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 1982

’s immunity. … Finally, the court order establishing the library clearly intended that the two entities, the Library and the School District, would maintain separate identities.

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

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). .

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

Sciandra v. Lynett

409 Pa. 595 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1963

However, this is a qualified or conditional privilege, rather than absolute. … However, this qualified immunity is forfeited if the publisher steps out of the scope of the privilege or abuses the “occasion.” This can be done by exaggerated additions, or embellishments to the account.

Nykiel v. Borough of Sharpsburg

778 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2011

Qualified Immunity 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 … If the court *588 concludes that defendants’ conduct did violate a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Id.

Commonwealth v. Shaleen

30 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1905

The context in the 2d and 3d sections clearly shows, however, that anthracite miners only are referred to. … The power of the legislature to classify coal mines and to legislate for each class separately is clearly established in Durkin v. Kingston Coal Co., 171 Pa. 193 , and in Commonwealth v. Jones, 4 Pa Superior Ct. 362.

Morrison v. Stepanski

839 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1993

and Stepanski assert that ■they are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages under Harlow v. … As the proponent of qualified immunity, defendants bear the burden of establishing that it applies to them. Stoneking, supra, 882 F.2d at 726 .

Davis v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

980 A.2d 709 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2009

SEPTA contends that under Pennsylvania law, SEPTA is clearly entitled to sovereign immunity. We agree that under Pennsylvania Law, SEPTA is protected by the Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity. … Clearly, the Commonwealth regards SEPTA as a Commonwealth agency for purposes of sovereign immunity.

Legal Capital, LLC. v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund

561 Pa. 336 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2000

“An assignment is a transfer of property or some other right from one person to another, and unless in some way qualified, it extinguishes the assignor’s right to performance by the obligor and transfers that right to the … Clearly, Legal • Capital does not seek to obtain money damages from the CAT Fund itself in the instant action. The funds that Legal Capital seeks are funds the CAT Fund is already affirmatively *343 obligated to pay.

Rhodes v. Weinberger

388 F. Supp. 437 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1975

It would seem that defendant’s admission is insufficient to meet the criterion of mootness established by United States v. W. T. Grant, 345 U.S. 629 , 73 S.Ct. 894 , 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953). … Mandamus clearly lies to compel the Secretary to cease enforcing an unconstitutional statute. Richardson v. U.

Clark v. Conahan

737 F. Supp. 2d 239 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2010

Qualified Immunity Brulo argues that the remaining activity is protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for conduct that does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would be aware. Pearson v.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Board of Revision of Taxes

777 A.2d 1234 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2001

whether SEPTA is immune from taxation. … We note that the General Assembly explicitly established SEPTA as an agency and instrumentality of the Commonwealth in Section 1711 of the Public Transportation Law (Law), 74 Pa.C.S. § 1711.

Chocallo v. Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, SSA

548 F. Supp. 1349 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1982

Qualified Immunity As to defendant Trachtenberg, the Director of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, a defense of qualified immunity applies to bar plaintiff’s claims for damages arising out of the performance of his duties … Thus, if the affidavit of Trachtenberg establishes that he acted in good faith, in accordance with the above definition, he is entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity.

McHenry v. Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

50 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1999

The Supreme Court has explained what it means by clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing … If the actions of the government official, as alleged by the plaintiff, do not even rise to a level of a-constitutional violation, then that official is clearly entitled to qualified immunity.

Hawk v. Brosha

590 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1984

or to qualified good faith immunity. … light of clearly established law.

Young v. Sunbury Police Department

160 F. Supp. 3d 802 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2016

Count III Defendants also seek dismissal of the Section 1983 claims against Officers Heck-man and Blaise on the theory that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not clearly unlawful. … established.” 59 A right is clearly established if “a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” 60 “[E]xisting precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond

Schor v. NORTH BRADDOCK BOROUGH

801 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2011

However, “[a]t the 12(b)(6) stage, qualified immunity will be found ‘only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.’ ” Cunningham v. N. … In other words, if on the face of the complaint, Plaintiff “fails to state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, ‘a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of

Dallam v. Cumberland Valley School District

391 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1975

the issue at hand in no way qualifies as an “immunity” within the meaning of § 1983. … Insofar as Goss turns on the magnitude of the injury it clearly is distinguishable from the case at bar.