Case law

Howard v. Chester Cnty. Office of Juvenile Prob.

365 F. Supp. 3d 562 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2019

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 *573 person would have … established" so as to deprive Defendants of qualified immunity.

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.

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.

Whittington v. Vaughn

289 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2003

The Commonwealth defendants, as state officials, are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability in § 1983 suits unless there has been a constitutional violation of a clearly established right. Conn v.

Brown, J. v. Gaydos, G., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2026

Id. at 11. 6 Brown contends his interpretation is supported by the plain language of Section 72 “when read as [a] whole, clearly and unambiguously establishes that a co-employee seeking immunity must have been actively … Read against its facts, Apple clearly did not interpret “in the same employ” as granting the form of unlimited immunity that Gaydos advocates.

Buehl v. Lehman

802 F. Supp. 1266 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1992

Defendants have asserted qualified immunity from damages in their individual capacities. … Officials exercising discretionary powers are immune from liability for civil damages for conduct which does not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have been aware.

Cooper v. Delaware Valley Medical Center

428 Pa. Super. 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1993

Clearly, a review of Judge Biester’s opinion establishes that he granted summary judgment in favor of DVMC on the basis that the hospital was a private institution and therefore no state action was involved in its decisions … Clearly, the Legislature recognized that hospitals, as organizations, are involved in the Peer Review Process.

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

Doe v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

871 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1994

This qualified immunity was also extended to persons providing information to professional review bodies. 42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a)(2). … As the immunity section suggests and the weight of case law has clearly established, Congress was not trying to create a cause of action in favor of aggrieved physicians when it passed the HCQI Act.

Albright v. Abington Memorial Hospital

548 Pa. 268 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1997

Pursuant to the qualified immunity provision of the Act, the Hospital is immune from civil and criminal liability for certain decisions that it makes unless it committed willful misconduct or gross negligence. … To resolve Appellant’s first argument, we must interpret the Act’s qualified immunity provision.

Meketa v. Kamoie

955 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2013

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials acting and sued in their individual capacities, see Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471-73 , 105 S.Ct. 873 , 83 L.Ed.2d 878 (1985). … A state or municipal actor “sued in his individual capacity enjoys qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Bratton v. Toboz

764 F. Supp. 965 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1991

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.... … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. (Citations omitted). Harlow v.

Montanye v. Wissahickon School District

327 F. Supp. 2d 510 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2004

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “[ojfficials exercising discretionary powers are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id.

Coggins v. Carpenter

468 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1979

corruptly, he is unqualifiedly immune from liability; but if a prosecutor acts in an area where he clearly lacks all jurisdiction over the subject matter, he is not entitled to absolute, unqualified immunity for his conduct … (b) Smith and Shaefer — qualified immunity Smith argues that, to the extent he acted in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Chester County, he is immune from liability because he was acting in good faith and within the scope

CICCHIELLO v. Beard

726 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims because they are shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Therefore, the court must examine: (1) whether the officials violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Id.

Wilkinson v. Bensalem Township

822 F. Supp. 1154 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1993

Legal Analysis Qualified immunity insulates a governmental official from liability for civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … When analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, we must “first ... identify the specific constitutional right allegedly violated, then ... inquire whether at the time of the alleged violation it was clearly established, then

Broadwater v. Fow

945 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2013

Qualified Immunity Fow, Swink, Hockenberry, and Rush also assert their entitlement to qualified immunity. Application of qualified immunity requires two distinct questions. … The court may eschew difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent *586 that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant acted

Hall v. Raech

677 F. Supp. 2d 784 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2010

They also invoke the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that even if plaintiffs evidence is sufficient to show a constitutional violation, the right *791 infringed was not clearly established at the time of the incident … Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “officers performing discretionary functions are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Flohr v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

821 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1993

Clearly, defendant’s evidence establishes that to the representatives of PP & L, the tree appeared to be healthy and normal. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to contradict this simple material fact. … Since the only evidence on the record clearly establishes that the land in question was open to the public and in fact used by the public, defendant is not precluded from asserting the immunity granted by 68 P.S. § 477-1

Goldhaber v. Higgins

576 F. Supp. 2d 694 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2007

Although an absolute immunity inquiry does not entail a fact-specific examination of whether the actions taken by the person raising the immunity defense were in violation of clearly established law of which a reasonable … In the context of a qualified immunity analysis, the Court must “examine whether the alleged constitutional or statutory violations were ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violations.” Blake v.