Case law

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)).

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

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.

Taylor v. Altoona Area School District

513 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2007

Instead, they argue that Adams, Myers and Rit-chey are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … In this circuit, the state-created danger theory is clearly established law. Rivas, 365 F.3d at 201 (“In sum, we find that the pre-existing law of ‘state-created danger’ jurisprudence was clearly established.

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.”

Craftex Mills, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Markowicz)

901 A.2d 1077 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2006

His immune system. Q. Can you explain? A. Some people can live in the stuff forever and never respond to it. Other people have an immune system that will react to it. … Mengel was clearly qualified to render an opinion as to the nature of Claimant’s illness.

Estate of Arrington v. Michael

914 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2012

An officer who violates a constitutional right may not avail himself of qualified immunity if the “right was clearly established, such that ‘it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in … The relevant constitutional right was clearly established as of July 2009.

Thomas v. Barker

371 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2005

Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (recognizing qualified immunity as a general rule). … Consequently, since Plaintiffs claim clearly relates to the prosecuto-rial decision to file charges against him, Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from monetary damages.

Cohen v. Oasin

863 F. Supp. 225 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 1994

Oasin enjoys, at most, only a qualified immunity, and is therefore not immune from the lawsuit. Mr. … Oasin with an absolute immunity from this lawsuit. Mr. Cohen contends that Mr. Oasin is entitled, at most, to qualified immunity. The plaintiff argues that since Mr.

Wagner v. Holtzapple

101 F. Supp. 3d 462 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2015

Qualified immunity/good faith defense Our Supreme Court in Saucier v. … and second, whether that right was clearly established. 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

City of Phila. v. J.S., Aplts.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2026

The City, however, argues Section 8542(b)(9) is unambiguous for the opposite reason — the General Assembly clearly intended the sexual abuse immunity exception to apply only if the victim was a minor at the time of the … Through its enactment of Section 2310, the Sovereign Immunity Act, and the PSTCA, the Pennsylvania General Assembly clearly directed that broad governmental immunity is the “absolute rule.” Mascaro, 523 A.2d at 1123.

Snyder v. Specialty Glass Products, Inc.

441 Pa. Super. 613 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1995

These acts *630 clearly are ones which an employee such as Snyder would expect to occur at the workplace. … Therefore, under the test enunciated in McGinn, Snyder’s allegation of IIED does not qualify under the co-employee immunity provision in section 205 of the WCA.

Swift v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. OF COM.

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 Haverford, Radnor and the School District enjoy qualified immunity from actions for damages, but argue that they have no immunity from actions for injunctive relief. [7] The remaining

Williams v. Lehigh Department of Corrections

79 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1999

Also, Warden Sweeney and Director Klotz seek a ruling of qualified immunity. To the extent that these defendants are sued in their official capacities, qualified immunity does not protect them. See, e.g., W.B. v. … Similarly, as to any suit against the officials in their individual capacities, the Third Circuit has explained that the "defense of qualified official immunity ... is inapplicable to claims for prospective relief.”

Dauer v. Department of Education

874 A.2d 159 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2005

Where no right, privilege or immunity is in jeopardy, an agency’s action does not constitute an adjudication. … In this respect, she had no right, privilege or immunity in jeopardy. See Sergi v. Sch.

Corliss v. Varner

934 A.2d 748 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2007

Clearly, the case was prison conditions litigation. The final exhibit and the most interesting was Exhibit E which was Judge Caputo’s March 21, 2002, order dismissing the case Corliss v. Ben Varner, No. 3:CV-02-0282. … The cases considered by common pleas under the "three strikes rule” were all filed prior to the instant case and, therefore, properly qualified for consideration. 5 .

Mastromatteo v. Simock

866 F. Supp. 853 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1994

Qualified Immunity The United States Supreme Court has noted that government officials, when performing discretionary duties, are entitled to a qualified immunity, one that “shield[s] them from civil damages liability as … Accordingly, a government official will not be immune from a lawsuit if the law violated is one that is clearly established, such that a reasonable official would have known he was acting in violation of it. Good v.

Schieber v. City of Philadelphia

156 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 2001

Qualified Immunity The standard for determining whether the affirmative defense of qualified immunity applies is well-established. … Summary judgment will not be granted on the basis of qualified immunity. F.

Kilvitis v. County of Luzerne

52 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1999

Mitchell, 986 F.Supp. 339, 342 (W.D.Va.1997) (“The FMLA clearly expresses an intent to abrogate sovereign immunity.”); Knussman v. … Discovery may reveal that Tupper does not qualify as Kilvitis’ employer under the FMLA. Moreover, the defense of qualified immunity may be applicable here.

Sullivan v. Warminster Township

765 F. Supp. 2d 687 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2011

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields municipal employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”).