Case law

Dobransky, E. v. EQT Production

273 A.3d 1133 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2022

The matter before us concerns whether HESI — and by extension, EQT — qualify as statutory employers under the Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA” or “the Act”)1 and, as such, enjoy immunity from tort liability for injuries … Atlas filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it qualified as a statutory employer under Section 302(a)(1)(i) and, therefore, was immune from tort liability. Id.

Africa v. City of Philadelphia

910 F. Supp. 212 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1995

This grant of summary judgment was based exclusively on the conclusion that Goode was entitled to qualified immunity. … The rulings merely grant Goode qualified immunity on the personal capacity claims, a decision that does not affect the City’s liability.

Donaldson v. Hovanec

473 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1979

“As Navarette makes clear, the immunity defense should not be rejected if at the time that the act was committed there was no clearly established constitutional right and there was no malicious intention to deprive the plaintiff … Therefore, it is clear that in 1975, decedent Donaldson did not have a clearly established constitutional right to be subject to the provisions of Rule 51 A(l)(c), involving a custodial arrest, only when the procedures established

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice v. Castille

66 F. Supp. 3d 633 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2014

Specifically, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was held to guarantee the rights of citizens of one state who establish residency in another state to access “the same privileges and immunities … repetitive bar exam, and it categorically disqualifies Plaintiffs and otherwise qualified and experienced attorneys from eleven states from- the identical privilege and immunity.”

Sylvan Heights Realty Partners L.L.C. v. Lagrotta

6 Pa. D. & C.5th 344 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County · Feb 16, 2007

[AJbsent statutory classification, the parameters establishing ‘high public official’ status would be delineated *349 by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis, rather than establishing a bright-line ‘of demarcation, if any … While the above holding does suggest that defendant’s actions in placing telephone calls and issuing media releases qualifies for immunity, the court notes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled the Commonwealth Court

Yakowicz v. McDermott

120 Pa. Commw. 479 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1988

“Absolute privilege” is clearly a defense made available to Commonwealth officials by 42 Pa. C. S. §8542. … Commonwealth, 481 Pa. 540 , 393 A.2d 293 (1978), held that official immunity is not absolute but qualified and its availability depends on the circumstances of each case.

Haefner v. Steward

19 Pa. D. & C.4th 152 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County · Feb 17, 1993

and qualified immunity; and (3) the failure to state a cause of action for defamation against Dr. … Thus, no apology will be forthcoming.” 3 *158 Plaintiff’s third amended complaint establishes that Dr.

O'BRIEN v. Township of Ralpho

166 Pa. Commw. 337 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1994

as an adjudication and that the incident report in this case qualifies as such. … , immunities, duties, liabilities, or obligations.

Cuvo v. De Bias

339 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2004

If qualified immunity is to be defeated, a plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test. First, he must establish that the government official violated a “basic, unquestioned constitutional right” belonging to plaintiff. … Accordingly, we conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the first level of a qualified immunity analysis.

Lear v. Zanick

850 F. Supp. 2d 481 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2012

was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Defendants Lewis, Mercer, and Haubrick are entitled to qualified immunity. G.

White v. City of Philadelphia

118 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2000

Because qualified immunity turns on whether a constitutional right was clearly established, the threshold inquiry is whether plaintiffs allege a cognizable constitutional injury. See, e.g., Sharrar v. … Failure to establish a constitutional violation clearly entitles the Officers to qualified immunity. See In re City of Philadelphia Litig., 158 F.3d 711, 719 (3d Cir.1998).

Munchinski v. Solomon

258 F. Supp. 3d 534 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2017

to turn over this evidence was not clearly established constitutional law until 1995. … Because such a right was not clearly established in this Circuit at the time of Gibson’s conviction, Troopers Pennypacker and Reilly are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to their failure to inform the prosecutor

Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd.

2003 Pa. Super. 83 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2003

PP & L, however, asserted immunity under the RULWA and sought entry of summary judgment. … We will reverse the resulting order “only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion.”

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Magrini v. Magrini

263 Pa. Super. 366 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1979

. § 23572, that all such funds in the hands of the city were immune from attachments for support. … (Immunity from assignment and alienation in the above context includes immunity from garnishment and attachment. See Treasury Regulations, 41 Fed.Reg. § 56334.)

Scholl v. Pavilonis

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2025

immunity. … App’x 910, 915 (3d Cir. 2005) (complaint may be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity “when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint” (cleaned up)).

Wargo v. MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE, PA

646 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2009

Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions, if one assumed, arguendo, that Defendants’ conduct did indeed constitute a § 1983 violation, they would still be afforded qualified … Qualified immunity will be granted when a reasonable officer in the position of a defendant could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the established law and information known to the officer at the

Crighton v. Schuylkill County

882 F. Supp. 411 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1995

seek dismissal on the grounds of qualified immunity for Warden Kurtz, and in a footnote, for the other individual defendants as well. … Because the Court is not satisfied that Defendants have shown that the “offending” conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known, at this time, the Court rejects

ROYER v. ROBERTSON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2023

The first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is therefore satisfied. Qualified immunity’s second prong asks whether the constitutional right that was violated was “clearly established.” … , be able to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment.”

Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

667 F. Supp. 1088 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 1987

Qualified Immunity The standard to be applied in resolving a qualified immunity issue is well-settled. In Harlow v. … Thus, the pending question, in terms of the qualified immunity defense, is whether the plaintiff had a constitutional right which at the time of the alleged violation, was clearly established.

Corfield v. Coryell

6 F. Cas. 546 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1823

of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state … possession of the thing; as well as the general or qualified property .therein.