Case law

Federal Trade Commission v. Commonwealth Marketing Group, Inc.

72 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 1999

“Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ... … The individual counterclaim defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because defendants do not articulate the clearly established statutory and constitutional rights that they allegedly violated.

Caristo v. Blairsville-Saltsburg Sch. Dist.

370 F. Supp. 3d 554 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2019

Plaintiff takes this language too literally, as two sentences earlier the Court stated the standard: "[t]he defense of qualified immunity can support the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the complaint itself establishes … the circumstances required for a finding of qualified immunity."

Post v. Mendel

510 Pa. 213 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1986

In this Commonwealth, protection for such communications is firmly established. As stated in Greenberg v. … The letter was clearly not a part of the judicial proceedings to which it made reference, and merely forwarding a copy of the letter to the court did not make it a part of those proceedings.

Bochetto v. Gibson

580 Pa. 245 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2004

Gibson and his firm also argued that he was entitled to summary judgment for his act of sending his malpractice complaint to Dudick because he was entitled to conditional or qualified immunity and because the allegations … While Gibson is not absolutely immune from liability for his act of sending the complaint to Dudick, he nevertheless may be entitled to qualified immunity. See Green v.

Brooks v. Cole; Apl of: Family Court

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (emphasis in original) (discussing qualified public official immunity). … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991) (discussing qualified immunity); see also, e.g., Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231- 32 (declaring that a qualified immunity defense is “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go

Souders v. Kroboth

547 F. Supp. 187 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1982

Having pleaded the qualified immunity defense, the defendant parole officers are imbued with immunity provided they establish that they acted in good faith. Thompson v. Burke, 556 F.2d 231, 239 (3d Cir. 1977). … Accordingly, since the test for qualified immunity is an objective one, I conclude that defendants have established the defense.

Page Ex Rel. Page v. School District of Philadelphia

45 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1999

Official Immunity The individual school district defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity to the plaintiffs’ claims under § 1983, as well as argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the merits of the … The individual defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Assaf v. Fields

999 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1998

Qualified Immunity. … Even where they violate clearly established rights, officials will nonetheless be immune from suit if they acted in a manner which they reasonably believe to be lawful. Orsatti v.

United States v. Pennsylvania State Police

548 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1982

This affidavit fails to establish that defendant Price is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Thus, defendant Price is not now entitled to summary judgment on the basis of a defense of qualified immunity. II.

Mohammed Ex Rel. Mohammed v. School District of Philadelphia

355 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2005

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” 50 Since the Court has already determined that the facts here … A.96-6039, 1997 WL 411205 , at *3 (E.D.Pa. *788 July 27, 1997) (“Public school officials are entitled to qualified immunity against constitutional claims when their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or

Hinkal, M. v. Pardoe, G.

2016 Pa. Super. 11 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2016

In remanding the case, this Court reasoned that the contract at issue “clearly concerned health and safety” and identified a public interest in “assuring that those claiming to be qualified to follow a doctor’s orders are … the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the pgrty seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is upon the party invoking

Commonwealth v. Einhorn

2006 Pa. Super. 322 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2006

Because there is no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, and because Einhorn has not established that Flodin’s testimony would be clearly exculpatory, the application of Smith would not result in a different disposition. … Tumosa was qualified and accepted as a research chemist with specialization in the area of materials collection and preservation. 9 .

Price v. City of Philadelphia

239 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2017

He also argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because his constitutional rights were clearly established, id. at 22-23 , and that he is entitled to punitive damages, id. at 15-17 . … “[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 would have

Huber v. Commonwealth

122 Pa. Commw. 82 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1988

DOT argues that Appellants have not established the first element, namely, that DOT had a duty to conform to a particular standard of conduct with respect to Appellants. … Clearly, at common law, DOT has no duty to remove this ice and snow and Appellants have no cause of action. Vitelli .

Phillips v. Heydt

197 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2002

Mayor Heydt is not entitled to immunity Public officials may raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as a shield from liability for their official actions unless those actions violate “clearly established statutory … When analyzing a qualified immunity claim, a court must first identify the constitutional or statutory right at stake and then determine if that right was clearly established at the time the defendants violated those rights

Kosmack v. Jones

807 A.2d 927 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2002

And you, sir, would not be qualified to disagree or challenge what he says, is that right? On that specific conclusion, are you qualified to say that he’s wrong. A. I don’t know at this point that I have the data. … Under the Sovereign Immunity Act, Commonwealth agencies are generally immune from tort liability. 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310; 42 Pa.C.S. § 8521(a).

Pitner v. Murrin

812 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2008

Qualiñed Immunity The principles governing claims of qualified immunity are well-established. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

U.S. Venture Inc, Aplt. v. Dep of Comm & Econo Dev

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2021

The Commonwealth points out that Venture simultaneously wishes to avail itself of the Code to the extent that the written agreements qualify for the Code’s waiver of sovereign immunity while ignoring all other parts of … We would agree that sovereign immunity would be waived if these agreements were “procurement contracts,” insofar as a “procurement contract” qualifies as a contract that is governed by the Code and for which sovereign

K. Claypoole and M. Knepp as Co-Administrators of the Estate of G.M. Noel v. Altoona-Logan Twp. Mobile Medical Emergency Dept. Authority d/b/a AMED

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2026

Cmwlth. 2015) (the General Assembly, via Section 5607 of the Municipal Authorities Act, 53 Pa.C.S. § 5607, clearly intended to create “a targeted form of accountability resting outside the scope of governmental immunity”; … Accordingly, the court in Malcolm concluded that the legislature “clearly meant to single out certain governmental employees and their governmental employers for standards of immunity different from those extant in the more

Rourke v. United States

744 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1989

In these motions to dismiss the complaint, the remaining individual defendants contend that they are absolutely immune from personal liability for the state law torts asserted in Counts I thru V and enjoy qualified immunity … Clearly, the same conduct which this Court concludes is discretionary for purposes of establishing immunity from state law tort claims will likewise be discretionary for purposes of determin *103 ing whether the United States