Case law

Coover v. Saucon Valley School District

955 F. Supp. 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the United States Supreme Court established the standard for a grant of qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established, the Court held that “the immunity defense ordinarily should fail____” Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Sacred Heart Hospital v. Heckler

601 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1984

The Secretary ruled that the DSRFs did not qualify as funded depreciation because they were established with borrowed funds. … The Secretary has now clearly adopted the one applied in this case.

D.N. Ex Rel. Nelson v. Snyder

608 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed constitutional violations if the plaintiffs rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … The court finds that Snyder and Watts are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Mohney v. Pennsylvania

809 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2011

the test established in Boeme. … The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has established that "a state program or activity that accepts federal funds waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity" and is therefore susceptible to suit under the RA.

Schmidt v. Degen

376 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1974

Historically, “[f]ew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction . ” Pierson v. … This decision, built upon the established principle that executive immunity is qualified, does not alter the broad sweep of judicial immunity. As my colleague, Judge VanArtsdalen, recently observed in Cohen v.

Gahagan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

444 F. Supp. 1326 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1978

Nor is the good faith qualified immunity for executive officers properly before us. … Furthermore, Parole Board members and probation officers are entitled to a qualified immunity in which they are immune from suit if they acted in good faith. Id.

McHenry v. PA. STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUC.

50 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1999

The Supreme Court has explained what it means by clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing … If the actions of the government official, as alleged by the plaintiff, do not even rise to a level of a constitutional violation, then that official is clearly entitled to qualified immunity.

Stana v. School District

598 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1984

Two elements must be established to constitute a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … We believe that Plaintiff clearly has redress in the state courts of Pennsylvania. E.g. McKelvey v. Colonial School Dist., 22 Pa.Commwlth. 207, 348 A.2d 445 (1975).

DOMINIC J. v. Wyoming Valley West High School

362 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2005

to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. 2 A public official subject to suit pursuant to § 1983 may be entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … Because of the absence of a constitutional violation, the Court need not proceed further in determining whether Defendant Tribendis is entitled to qualified immunity.

Platt v. Brockenborough

476 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2007

.is clearly established). … Defendants have not raised a qualified immunity defense, and this Court may not raise it for them. Harlow v.

Wilt v. Commonwealth

46 Pa. Commw. 559 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1979

Lopus, although he clearly under the old law would have had absolute immunity, no longer enjoys this status. We are unable on the record now before us to say whether any public policy would be promoted by holding Mr. … Lopus to be immune.

Solyan v. Fontana

49 Pa. D. & C.3d 84 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County · Aug 11, 1988

The latter do not qualify as exceptions to governmental immunity. See Shakoor v. Department of Transportation, supra. … Consequently, this court is limited to applying the governmental immunity statute and its exceptions in accordance with established precedent and the intent of the legislature.

Commonwealth v. Norris

2011 Pa. Super. 177 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2011

However, unlike the immunity doctrine, the present statute applies to both public officials and public employees. … Although in the ensuing analysis we find that power and authority are not a necessary aspect of employment to qualify for application of the extended statute of limitations, clearly employment that comes with power and authority

Ruspi v. Glatz

69 A.3d 680 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2013

Does Lake Wallenpaupack qualify as “land” under the RULWA? 3. … To the extent of this separation, the Act establishes a dual system of control.

Johnson v. Peoples First National Bank & Trust Co.

394 Pa. 116 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1958

An examination of our decisions clearly indicates that “. . . the personal immunity which protects [the husband or wife] is based simply upon the policy of preserved domestic peace and felicity”: Koontz v. … It does not follow, because for certain reasons the right may be qualified, and recovery suspended during the coverture, yet when the reasons are removed by the death of the husband, she should have no remedy against the

Dunkle v. Middleburg Municipal Authority

842 A.2d 477 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2004

To qualify for an exception under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff is required to prove that (1) the damages would be recoverable under common law or statute against a person unprotected by governmental immunity, and (2) … Summary judgment is properly granted where there is no genuine issue of material *481 fact as to a necessary element of a cause of action and the moving party has clearly established entitlement to judgment as a matter of

Bansal v. Russ

513 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2007

Qualified Immunity Defendants allege the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because Plaintiff can present no evidence that any of the individual Defendants actually committed any of the wrongs alleged … of clearly established rights, the court will deny the claims of qualified immunity with leave to renew once all discovery disputes have been resolved. 4 IV.

Com. v. Markun, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2017

As the trial court notes, while the statute clearly places the burden of proving immunity upon the defendant, the statute is silent as to the timing and mechanism through which a defendant may seek immunity. … establish the other statutory requirements listed in section 780- 113.7.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Holmes

835 A.2d 851 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2003

. § 8371. 7 First, SEPTA enjoys sovereign immunity unless the claim falls into one of the exceptions to sovereign immunity established by the legislature, and liability for bad faith claims handling is not one of the enumerated … Next, the plaintiff must establish that the cause of action falls within one of the specifically enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b). Appellees cannot satisfy either burden.

Maxwell Ex Rel. Maxwell v. School District of Philadelphia

53 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1999

Section 1983 In her motion to dismiss, defendant Chu asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity on the § 1983 4 claim. Therefore, I must first determine whether she is entitled to that defense. … The qualified immunity defense protects “officials exercising discretionary powers ... from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which