Case law

In Re Investigating Grand Jury

527 Pa. 432 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1991

Clearly, the Commonwealth hoped to do so by the grant of immunity to Employee B. It is premature, however, on the strength of this record. … If the Commonwealth is able to establish to the court’s satisfaction that the grant of immunity is necessary,- then the immunity order shall be issued. *445 The petition for immunity described the December 8, 1988 statement

Commonwealth v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.

432 Pa. 584 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 1968

It is clearly not a corporation, 3 and Public Utility Code §1102(16) defines “person” as “individuals, partnerships, or associations other than corporations. . . .” … Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 407 Pa. 609, 617-18, 620 , 182 A. 2d 199, 204-05 (1962), to give the Turnpike Commission the same basic sovereign immunity protection as that enjoyed by the Commonwealth itself.

Parker v. Carroll

6 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1998

Second, the officer defendants argue that they are entitled to summary *429 judgment on the Parkers’ claims because they have qualified immunity. … The officer defendants have not established that their conduct was reasonable as a matter of law in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the

Burkley v. Municipal Authority

991 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2014

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY As a final matter, the Court notes that the individual Defendants have not asserted qualified immunity as a defense at this stage. … Therefore, we conclude that a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.” Id. at 293 .

Williams v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.

337 Pa. 17 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1939

The Superior Court, however, found that defendant had not established the defeasible immunity, holding that such a defence was an affirmative one consisting of several elements, one of which (probable cause) defendant had … In view of the established law as outlined above, an analysis of the facts of the instant case clearly shows that there was no defeasible immunity involved here.

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hunte, L.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2025

Brobson cogently explains, nothing in the statute “forecloses a situation where either law enforcement obtains a warrant before directing emergency room personnel to withdraw a person’s blood or the Commonwealth later establishes … Through Section 3755(b) our General Assembly has clearly expressed its intent that medical personnel complying with requests from law enforcement to draw blood from suspected intoxicated drivers should enjoy immunity from

Cooper v. City of Chester

810 F. Supp. 618 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1992

Qualified immunity is available only if the defendants can show that "reasonable officials in the defendants’ position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported … Such a qualified immunity claim cannot withstand plaintiff’s allegation that these officers deliberately arrested the wrong man, since it is long established that an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment

Riccobene Appeal

439 Pa. 404 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1970

By its terms, the Pennsylvania Immunity Act is clearly a grant of “transactional” immunity identical to—and indeed broader than—that upheld in Brown and Ullmann, supra. … Even though appellant is not Constitutionally entitled to immunity from civil liability, we believe that Pennsylvania’s aforesaid Act clearly grants immunity from civil liability. C.

N.N. v. Tunkhannock Area School District

801 F. Supp. 2d 312 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2011

They raise the affirmative defenses of absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Harrisburg County Police Dept., 91 F.3d 451, 462 (3d Cir.1996) (absolute immunity). Because no money damages are sought against Ide, Skumanick, and Mitchell, neither absolute nor qualified immunity applies.

Morgan v. Sharon Pennsylvania Board of Education

472 F. Supp. 1157 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1979

Defendants further contend that even in the absence of absolute immunity, count two is barred by a qualified immunity that they are entitled to invoke. … At this stage of the litigation, however, it is premature to determine whether or not the requisite good faith needed for qualified immunity has been established.

Joseph M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19

516 F. Supp. 2d 424 · 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.

Francis v. Northumberland County

636 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2009

At this juncture, we address Warden Reish's argument for qualified immunity. … was clearly established.”

Kniaz v. Benton Borough

164 Pa. Commw. 109 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 1994

Immunity In order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment, the Fire Company sought to establish that no factual issue remains with respect to its qualification for governmental immunity under the PSTCA. … Thus, there is no dispute that the Fire Company has established the first prong of the Guinn requirements.

Bouchon v. Citizen Care, Inc.

176 A.3d 244 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2017

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to allege facts necessary to support a finding of gross negligence, as required in light of the qualified immunity under the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act … facts that could establish gross negligence on the part of Robinson EMS.

Jones v. Peterman

743 A.2d 537 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1999

These defendants have no statewide policymaking functions, so do not qualify as officers of the Commonwealth for purposes of the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction. … Jones seeks monetary damages for an alleged civil conspiracy to deprive him of his rights, which places his cause of action clearly within the definition of “action in trespass.”

Pennsylvania v. Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority

423 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2006

The taking is a governmental action and does not qualify as a form of market participation. … The court observes that neither Supreme Court nor Third Circuit jurisprudence has clearly articulated the parameters of the market participant exception to Parker immunity. For example, in City of Columbia v.

Thompson v. Montemuro

383 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1974

Public officials are not immune simply because they operate in a discretionary situation; they may be held liable when they act in bad faith or in a manner which is arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable. … Of this immunity the Supreme Court recently has stated: [A] qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of Government, the variation dependent upon the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the

S. Hoover v. S.A. Stine, PennDOT and the Borough of Waynesboro

153 A.3d 1145 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2016

Not only has Hoover failed to establish that Waynesboro or PennDOT’s purported negligence caused her injuries, she has failed to establish that the alleged negligence fell within any exception to immunity. … In this case, the z-bricks and concrete headers clearly established the path for pedestrian egress across the highway, just as the painted crosswalk did in Glenn, thereby serving

In Re: Amendments to Rule 1905 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2023

There is hereby established the Investment Advisory Board (‘‘Board’’), which shall consist of [eight] nine voting members. … (f) Immunity.

Service Employees International Union v. County of Butler

306 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1969

Plaintiffs to establish jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act must allege that defendants acted under color of law. … Davis, 396 F. *1084 2d 730 [8th Cir., 1968], Whether or not the qualified immunity of acts done in good faith can be asserted by these defendants as a defense is a factual matter that can only be resolved by a trial.