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.

Babcock v. Com., Dept. of Transp.

156 Pa. Commw. 69 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1993

waived pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4), or alternatively, that the log was personal property under the control of DOT and it qualifies for the exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(3). … The right-of-way off the highway or cartway is clearly neither intended to be used nor is regularly used for vehicular travel.

Frazier v. DiGuglielmo

640 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2008

The question whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation, because “[i]f a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial, then qualified immunity is … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” *601 Mitchell v.

Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology v. Upper Merion Township

270 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials’ conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 316 F.3d at 398. … (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Douris v. Schweiker

229 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2002

Qualified Immunity Having concluded that Plaintiff has stated a Fourth Amendment claim, the Court must determine if Defendant Rauch is entitled to qualified immunity, as he asserts. (Def. Rauch’s Mot. to Dismiss 6-8). … In § 1983 cases alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the question of immunity focuses on whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information

Little v. Lycoming County

912 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1996

Based on these considerations, the Fourth Circuit concluded in Torcasio , in ruling on defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity from claims they had violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, that it was not “clearly … State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability even if their conduct violated federal constitutional or statutory standards if the rights in question were not “clearly established” as of the time of the

Com. v. South, F.

238 A.3d 413 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 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. … Upon careful review of the record, we agree with the trial court that Appellant did not qualify for Section 780-113.7(c) immunity because he failed to satisfy the Act’s requirements.

Com. v. South, F.

2020 Pa. Super. 194 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 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. … Upon careful review of the record, we agree with the trial court that Appellant did not qualify for Section 780-113.7(c) immunity because he failed to satisfy the Act’s requirements.

Newkirk v. Sheers

834 F. Supp. 772 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1993

In applying the doctrine of qualified immunity to the facts of a given case, a court must grant immunity to a government official performing discretionary functions “insofar as [her] conduct does not violate clearly established … In some cases, the qualified immunity issue also has rested on “the complementary question of whether defendant had a clearly 'established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v.

Commonwealth v. Finn

11 Pa. Super. 620 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1899

It was intended to protect the privileges ■and immunities of citizens of the United States that is, such privileges and immunities as belong to them as citizens of the United States, as distinguished from those that belong … A. 470, “it only establishes a rule of evidence by which qualification to practice medicine and surgery is to be determined.”

Siegel v. Miller

446 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2006

Qualified immunity excuses government officials and employees from standing trial where their conduct “does not violate clearly established-statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If a constitutional violation could be made out based on plaintiffs evidence, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Delaware County Solid Waste Authority v. Berks County Board of Assessment Appeals

142 Pa. Commw. 424 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1991

was necessary after resolution of the immunity and exemption issues. … Out of these concepts a basic principle has been recognized that property owned by the Commonwealth cannot be taxed by a local taxing body in the absence of a statute clearly authorizing it to do so.

Davis v. Cheltenham Township Police Department

767 F. Supp. 104 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1991

On the facts as alleged, the defense of qualified immunity cannot succeed. … Accepting as true the complaint’s factual allegations, as is required on this motion, defendants’ qualified immunity defense cannot be sustained. 3 V.

Hutchings v. ERIE CITY AND COUNTY, ETC.

516 F. Supp. 1265 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1981

Admittedly, in appropriate instances, certain defendants in civil rights actions can be shielded from liability for damages by asserting a qualified good faith immunity defense. See, Wood v. … Therefore, we conclude that this affidavit by itself, is not sufficient to establish a good faith immunity defense for all of the defendants in this action.

Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Swope (In re J & S Properties, LLC)

545 B.R. 91 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2015

Accordingly, we must not confuse the qualified immunity analyses associated with actions brought by estate beneficiaries with the qualified immunity analyses of actions brought by third parties. 6 *105 As to the latter, i.e … This Court notes that Antoine was addressing absolute immunity, and left open the issue of whether qualified immunity would require the same analysis.

Swift v. Department of Transportation

937 A.2d 1162 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2007

Burns was qualified to testify as an expert witness for the Department. Once qualified, an expert witness may testify on broad topics and specialties within their field. Kuisis v. … In its reply brief, Appellants admit that Haver-ford, Radnor and the School District enjoy qualified immunity from actions for damages, but argue that they have no immunity from actions for injunctive relief. .

Allen v. Montgomery Hospital

548 Pa. 299 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1997

Farago, supra at 419 , 562 A.2d at 303 (hospital qualifies as person subject to immunity under Section 114 of the MHPA). … Such a narrow interpretation would clearly contravene the purposes of the MHPA to provide adequate treatment to the mentally ill with the least *308 restrictive physical restraints. 6 Applying this interpretation to the present

Kelsey-Andrews v. City of Philadelphia

713 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1989

Qualified Immunity In support of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defendants’ argue that Liciardello and Doyle are entitled to qualified immunity as police supervisors. … Prockop, 682 F.Supp. 247, 254-55 (D.N.J.1987) (public official not entitled to qualified immunity for alleged acts of sexual harassment occurring in 1983; contours of the law of § 1983 sexual harassment were clearly established

Burkhart v. Saxbe

448 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1978

To enjoy the defense of qualified immunity 33 the defendants must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) they did not know and reasonably need not have known that overhearing the plaintiffs’ conversations … Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) which established only qualified immunity for state executive officials violating civil rights, was improper because defendants in this casé were federal officials

In the Interest of: A.W., JR., a Minor

187 A.3d 247 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2018

Court orders for the child to receive all vaccinations forthwith”, without a proper factual and legal basis being established at the hearing of this matter . . . ? 2. … The record establishes that S.W., A.W., Jr., J.W., and M.W. are at risk without the additional medical monitoring and treatment that Parents oppose. Parents will not consent to the administration of vaccinations.