Case law

Isajewicz v. Bucks County Department of Communications

851 F. Supp. 161 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1994

An official may be entitled to qualified immu nity if it is shown that the allegedly unlawful action does not violate laws that were clearly established at the time of the conduct. Anderson v. … Therefore, Kostmayer did not violate a clearly estab­lished constitutional or statutory right and is entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Atlee v. Laird

339 F. Supp. 1347 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1972

The defendants argued that the House, and the House alone, has the power to determine who is qualified to be a member. … This suit clearly comes within the second exception to the rule of sovereign immunity.

La Russa Appeal

232 Pa. Super. 272 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1974

It is necessary here to examine the Commonwealth’s petition requesting the grant of immunity in order to establish whether or not the grant of immunity was proper in this case. … In that opinion, it was reasoned that the Legislature had clearly set limitations on the scope of immunity in the Act of November 22, 1968, supra, and had limited such grants of immunity to situations involving “organized

Sweigard v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

454 Pa. 32 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1973

Appellants make three contentions: the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Pennsylvania is judicially, and not constitutionally established; Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania constitutes a waiver of … In light of our holding that Article I, Section 11 establishes sovereign immunity, appellants' contention that that section tvaives such immunity is obviously without merit. Order affirmed.

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.

Vicky M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19

486 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity Additionally, the Supervisor Defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity. … With regard to the federal claims, public officials generally enjoy qualified immunity for their actions unless those actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.

Ballas v. City of Reading

168 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2001

Under Rule 12(c), the court cannot grant judgment on the pleadings “unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … To qualify as legislative, the act in question must be both substantively and procedurally legislative in nature. In re Montgomery County, 215 F.3d 367, 376 (3d Cir.2000).

Campbell v. City of Philadelphia

927 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity The defendants next argue that even if they did use excessive force they are entitled to qualified immunity. Def. MSJ at 26. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

Newman v. Thorn

359 Pa. Super. 274 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1986

Newman’s dismissal; (2) federal case law grants state and local officials qualified immunity from suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of federal civil rights; (3) the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, … We therefore conclude that the mere presence of issues other than immunity will not justify a refusal to transfer this case. 6 We also must consider the possibility of establishing two conflicting lines of authority on one

Ascolese v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

925 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1996

Van de Beek’s Right to Qualified Immunity Finally, van de Beek argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity as to Ascolese’s section 1983 claim. … SEPTA’s motion for summary judgment as to van de Beek’s qualified immunity is DENIED. 4.

Meyers Estate

416 Pa. 516 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1965

qualified appraiser. … Hileman to have like option to purchase the same at the price established as aforesaid, within sixty (60) days from the date of the expiration of the option of Samuel Davis." *518 Davis appointed a qualified appraiser, Hileman

Farmer v. Decker

353 F. Supp. 3d 342 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018

The doctrine of sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth and its employees is established by 1 Pa. C.S. § 2310. … In light of the Court's determination as to probable cause, the Court need not address Defendant's argument that he is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

John Doe v. Franklin Co. Sheriff's Office, Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2017

Further, “absent statutory classification, the parameters establishing ‘high public official’ status would be delineated by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis, rather than establishing a bright-line rule.” … First, appellees’ argument that the doctrine of immunity generally has been completely abolished was clearly and unquestionably rejected by this Court and the General Assembly.

Winig, J., Aplt. v. Office of DA of Phila.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2025

Title I, Section 2310 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes further establishes that only the General Assembly can waive “the immunity,” i.e., sovereign or official immunity. … The only affirmative defense clearly and expressly barred under Section 5725 is found in subsection (b), which clearly and expressly waives the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity for those entitled to assert it.

Stanton v. LACKAWANNA ENERGY, LTD.

2008 Pa. Super. 132 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2008

Upon our review, our Court determined that PP & L qualified as an “owner” under the RULWA. … We also concluded that [the Stantons] had failed to plead or establish any evidence that PP & L acted maliciously or willfully, so as to invoke an exception to the immunity afforded owners under the RULWA.

Barry v. Luzerne County

447 F. Supp. 2d 438 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2006

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability as long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “Where the [Pickering] balancing factors weigh heavily in favor of the employee, the law is clearly established and qualified immunity is unavailable.” Id. (quoting Ceballos 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.

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.

Weyandt v. Mason's Stores, Inc.

279 F. Supp. 283 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1968

Williams was indeed a private detective, but he also held a special police officer’s card issued by the City of Miami, Florida, and had taken an oath and qualified as a special police officer. … Plaintiff also fails to establish how she was deprived of the equal protection of the laws. She does not claim to be the member of a discriminated class.

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