Case law

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.

Commonwealth v. Allen, Huhn & Shane

70 Pa. 465 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1872

They do not make laws, but ordinances; nor are the members legislators, with the constitutional privileges and immunities of legislators. … Its powers, fully established by the General Assembly, 22d May 1722, 1 Smith’s Laws 181, and repeated in the Act of 16th June 1836, Purd. 928, pi. 19, have been recognised in numerous decisions, to some of which I may refer

Phillips v. City of Philadelphia

148 Pa. Commw. 175 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1992

Once the existence of a cause of action in negligence has been established, Appellee has the burden of showing that the requirements of one of the exceptions to governmental immunity have been met. … Subsection 8542(b)(6)(ii) clearly states that the exception applies only if “all of the ... conditions are met.” (Emphasis added.)

Kuchka v. Kile

634 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1985

Therefore, at most, defendants possess a qualified immunity. Id. … Plaintiff does not establish why his First Amendment claims cannot be brought pursuant to § 1983.

A. Johnson v. J. Wetzel, Sec'y. PA. D.O.C.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2024

Additionally, the DOC claimed qualified immunity from liability on the basis that government officials are immune from lawsuits based on allegedly unconstitutional actions so long as those officials did not violate individual … rights which were clearly established at the time, and about which a reasonable government official would have known.

Lawson v. Pennsylvania SPCA

124 F. Supp. 3d 394 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2015

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity defense requires a two-step analysis. Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 786 (3d Cir.2000). … In the section of their brief discussing qualified immunity.

Toth v. Bristol Township

215 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2002

Additionally, DeSilva claims qualified immunity from Plaintiffs claim as there is no clearly established statutory or constitutional right to be free from emergency medical treatment. (Defs.’ … “[W]hen a qualified immunity defense is raised a court first should determine whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all.” Larsen v.

Cipriani v. Lycoming County Housing Authority

177 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that the court erred by denying Pepperman and Montgomery qualified immunity on plaintiffs First Amendment claim. In Rouse v. … “[A] court must deny the claim [for qualified immunity] if the law is clearly established, ‘since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct’ unless [she] can either demonstrate extraordinary

Greenberg v. Aetna Insurance

427 Pa. 511 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1967

Public policy requires this, even if at times the privilege of immunity for false and malicious averments in pleadings is abused. … That Rule, as amplified by Rule 1030, provides: “(b) All affirmative defenses, including but not limited to those enumerated in Rule 1030, and the defenses of .. . privilege, qualified privilege, . . . shall be pleaded under

Kauffman v. Osser

321 F. Supp. 327 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1971

Plaintiffs have shown that certain features of P.L. 375 do indeed operate to immunize certain absentee voters from *332 private challenge. … of voters to qualify as competent electors.

Stevens v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

89 Pa. Commw. 309 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1985

The requirements of the statute are clearly written and create a very narrow exception to the defense of sovereign immunity for damages caused by potholes. … The statute clearly requires the “claimant to recover must establish” that the applicable Commonwealth agency, here PennDOT, had actual written notice of the dangerous condition with sufficient time in which to effect repairs

Kohn v. SCHOOL DIST. OF CITY OF HARRISBURG

817 F. Supp. 2d 487 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability on federal civil-rights claims insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Courts conduct a two-part analysis for a qualified immunity defense: whether the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and if it did, whether that right was clearly established at the time. Mierzwa v.

Flanagan v. Shively

783 F. Supp. 922 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1992

Federal officials do not lose qualified immunity from a Bivens action unless violation of federal regulation bears upon or implicates a clearly established constitutional right. … Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege violation of any clearly established constitutional right, thus entitling defendants to qualified immunity from his allegations.

O'Donnell v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

790 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 16, 2011

long-standing, and clearly established principles regarding governmental immunity, we will grant the Department of Corrections’ motion for summary judgment with respect to these claims. … In order to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the Act, 11 a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(1) that he or she has a disability; (2) that he or she is otherwise qualified to perform the

Ahmad v. Burke

436 F. Supp. 1307 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1977

Although the question whether a state agency partakes of the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity is clearly a federal question, state law governs the relationship between the agency and the state, and therefore state law … The court drew a distinction between adjudicatory and executive duties, and went on to hold that Board members enjoy absolute “quasi-judicial” immunity while performing adjudicatory duties, but that only qualified “good faith

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.

Mathis v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

381 Pa. Super. 466 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1989

The central question on appeal is whether PECO qualifies as the employer of John Mathis under the statute. … PECO also asserts that the testimony of the two Henkels foremen, Whitaker and Mench, clearly established that PECO had reserved the right to control Mathis’ work. We find that this testimony was ambiguous.

Uram v. County of Allegheny

130 Pa. Commw. 148 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1989

A police officer is not empowered to require the withdrawal of a warrant under the Act and indeed may not be qualified to make such a judgment. … Accordingly, the trial court’s holding that Appellant could not establish willful misconduct on Tosic’s part is affirmed.

Michener v. Brady (In Re Brady)

243 B.R. 253 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2000

In hearing such appeals, the district court applies a clearly erroneous standard to the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and a plenary standard to that court’s legal conclusions. … A legal assignment is a transfer of property, a right or interest from one person, the assignor, to another, the assignee, which transfers the entire interest in the thing assigned unless it is qualified. Huff v.

Ligon v. Middletown Area School District

136 Pa. Commw. 566 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1990

The trial court sustained Ligon’s objection because the response called for hearsay not qualifying under the admission exception. … Sidds’ statements fail to qualify under this exception. Also, Mr.