Case law

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. City of Philadelphia

20 A.3d 558 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2011

Clearly then, as an agency and instrumentality of the Commonwealth, SEPTA qualifies as an "employer" for purposes of the Act, subject to the jurisdiction of the PHRC. … Since the Commission does not have jurisdiction over SEPTA, the petition is not clearly insufficient to establish SEPTA's right to injunctive relief.

Pettineo v. City of Philadelphia Law Department-Claims Division

721 A.2d 65 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1998

In its answer to Pettineo’s complaint, the City contended that it was immune from suit and raised the defense of governmental immunity under Section 8541 of the Act. … Thus, we hold it was error to grant the City’s post-trial motion for judgment n.o.v. because the jury’s verdict was not clearly incorrect as a matter of law. Accordingly, we will reverse the trial court’s decision.

Bodor v. East Coventry Township

325 F. Supp. 1102 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1971

Clearly, a filing fee which equals approximately ten percent of Plaintiffs’ annual income acts as a bar to their ad *1104 ministrative remedies. … Immunity of Supervisors from Suit. As to the issue of the immunity of the Defendant Supervisors, said Supervisors enjoy a qualified immunity based upon “good faith” performance of their governmental functions.

Reed v. Marker

762 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1991

See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b) (listing exceptions to sovereign immunity). The Supreme Court has not spoken clearly on this subject. Compare Parratt v. … A fortiori, a plaintiff in a civil suit cannot, merely by alleging that information in the affidavit is incorrect, strip an affiant of his qualified immunity. See Baker v.

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

Dennis v. DeJong

953 F. Supp. 2d 568 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2013

Qualified immunity provides immunity from suit instead of merely providing a defense to liability. … conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right....

City of Philadelphia v. Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals

622 Pa. 581 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2013

According to the Board, the Girard Trust is clearly a public charity and continued immunity from local real estate taxation is therefore warranted. … Practically speaking, if an entity is immune, the taxing authority bears the burden of establishing why taxation is permissible; if the entity is exempt, the entity bears the burden of establishing why it should not be subject

M. Mazur v. J. Cuthbert

186 A.3d 490 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2018

qualify as a “pleading.” … where the defense is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint.”

Clifton v. Robinson

500 F. Supp. 30 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 1980

Although defendants have not answered the complaint, their motion raises a defense of qualified good faith immunity to plaintiffs’ claims. … Qualified immunity would not be available to defendants if, “based on all the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time of the action, on which liability is sought to be based,” Schuerer v.

Duffy v. County of Bucks

7 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1998

*582 accorded qualified immunity. … A reasonable probation officer could not have believed such action was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information allegedly in the officer's possession. Vasquez is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Tyler ex rel. Floyd v. Grossman

108 F. Supp. 3d 279 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2015

“In light of the Supreme Court’s ‘quite sparing’ recognition of absolute immunity,” the Third Circuit “begin[s] with the presumption that qualified rather than absolute immunity is appropriate.” … Otherwise, the immunity is qualified, which “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Brominski v. County of Luzerne

289 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2003

Absolute legislative immunity and qualified immunity are separate and distinct defenses to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … More specifically, qualified immunity focuses on whether officials’ actions were in violation of clearly established law, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Frederick L. v. Department of Public Welfare

157 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2001

As such, the Third Circuit determined in Christy that Eleventh Amendment immunity should be analyzed as an affirmative defense to be established by the party raising it. See id. … Thus, while the States are generally immune from suit brought by private individuals, there are three well-established exceptions to the bar. First, the States may consent to suit, waiving their immunity.

Molina v. City of Lancaster

159 F. Supp. 2d 813 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2001

When evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, the Court must determine if a constitutional violation has occurred, and then determine whether it was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Wilson v. … New Jersey State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 484 (3d Cir.1995) (stating clearly established right to be free from arrest without probable cause). Therefore, the police officers in this case do not have qualified immunity.

Freedman v. City of Allentown

128 Pa. Commw. 126 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1989

personnel” as contemplated by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(2). *130 Therefore, following the principle set forth in Steinberg , we hold that the functions performed by parole officers do not qualify them as health care personnel … Willful misconduct, if established, would (1) negate liability as to the Board, but (2) subject the employee, Kroboth, to liability.

Betz v. Satteson

259 F. Supp. 3d 132 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2017

Satteson is also shielded by qualified immunity, because it would not be “beyond debate” to every reasonable teacher in her shoes that her response under the circumstances constituted “clearly established” excessive force … fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.” 282 However, “qualified immunity is inapplicable to a state law cause of action;” 283 Thus, as should be noted for our purposes here, “[a] qualified immunity

Fialkowski v. Shapp

405 F. Supp. 946 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1975

The Court then expanded this “qualified good faith immunity doctrine” in Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S. Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). … A compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot

Greene v. Street

24 Pa. D. & C.5th 546 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 5, 2011

As Chairman of the PHA, Street is clearly protected by high public official immunity. … Accordingly, because Street both qualifies as a high official and was acting within the scope of his duties, he qualifies for high public official immunity.

Penllyn Greene Associates, L.P. v. Clouser

890 A.2d 424 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2005

Whether Residents are Immune from Liability Under the Act for Tortious Interference with Contract Before any review concerning the relevance of the exceptions, Residents must allege facts, which if believed, would establish … While the Act clearly contemplates a hearing process where an evidentiary record is established and findings made therefrom, the Act does not provide the standard to be applied by the trial court in deciding the issue.

Weinerman v. City of Philadelphia

785 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1992

These statutory provisions establish worker’s compensation liability, and thus immunity from a worker’s personal injury suit, for the specified contractors or employers unless the primarily liable subcontractor, or hiring … Section 3.1.1 of the contract clearly establishes that A & J was the contractor under the terms of the agreement which was in effect when Wein-erman was injured. 3 .