Case law

Kedra v. Schroeter

161 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2016

Under these circumstances, the vio-lative nature of Defendant’s alleged conduct has not been clearly established, and so Defendant is necessarily entitled to qualified immunity. IV. … at issue was clearly established.

Toth v. Bethel Township

268 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 2017

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … Even where a plaintiff has shown the violation of constitutional rights, an individual defendant will still enjoy qualified immunity unless those rights were clearly established at the time- of -the violation.

Noonan v. Kane

305 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2018

It determined that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity since he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 572 . … established for the purpose of qualified immunity.

WRIGHT CROFT v. DONEGAL TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2021

Accordingly, government officials sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for alleged violations of a plaintiff’s civil rights “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, courts analyze “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of

Miller v. City of Philadelphia

954 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1997

Defendants further claim that Scheer has qualified immunity under § 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right held by plaintiffs. i. … (holding standards for interviewing children that had allegedly been sexually abused not clearly established and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity), cer t. denied, 484 U.S. 828 , 108 S.Ct. 97 , 98 L.Ed.2d 58

GROSSMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2022

immunity. … Cir. 2012) (court conducting qualified immunity analysis looks to “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time

Lichtenstein v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.

316 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2018

"The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." Id. at 1866 . … of controlling authority in our jurisdiction or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts of Appeals [that] could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Gallaher v. Goldsmith

213 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2002

When analyzing a qualified immunity claim, a court must first identify the constitutional or statutory right at stake and then determine if that right was clearly established at the time the defendants violated those rights … Because plaintiff pled a valid constitutional right he has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. It must next be determined if that right was “clearly established.”

Thrower v. Pennsylvania

873 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2012

Plaintiff contends that qualified immunity does not apply because Decedent’s rights were clearly established at the time the Individual Defendants acted, even if it was uncertain at that time whether their actions would subject … Instantly, Defendants’ contention that it was not clearly established law that certain portions of the Medicaid Act create individually enforceable rights misses the qualified immunity mark.

Miller v. Wenerowicz

135 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2015

Once a defendant properly raises the defense of qualified- immunity, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of overcoming that defense by showing that the defendant violated the plaintiffs clearly established right. … But, as indicated above, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must cite to cases or other law that recognize a clearly established right of a prisoner to have his marriage request promptly approved

Wilson v. Jean

145 F. Supp. 3d 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

The Supreme Court teaches qualified immunity protects Defendant Officers from liability “when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights’ a reasonable official, similarly situated, .would … on video and admitted by him is not clearly established.

ATKINSON v. APODACA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2025

Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (3d Cir. 2010) (burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity on summary judgment is on the defendant). See also Collick v. William Paterson U., 699 Fed.

Barna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 205 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2015

The Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity attaches unless the official’s conduct violated such a clearly established right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Siehl v. City of Johnstown

365 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … immunity analysis-was there clearly established law-in light of their argument that there was no constitutional violation.

Zion v. Nassan

727 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2010

The next step in the qualified immunity analysis requires the court to “consider whether the right was clearly established.” McKee v. … . *403 The court of appeals concluded “that a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.” Id.

Doll v. Pennsylvania State Police

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2025

Doll responds that Trooper Tremaine’s conduct violates clearly established law and thus Trooper Tremaine’s actions cannot be protected by qualified immunity. (Doc. 36, at 12-15). … “In light of a clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity when the reasonableness of the force used is factually disputed.” Guthrie v. Guthrie, 216 F. Supp. 3d 590, 596 (W.D.

Kopec v. Tate

230 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2002

Defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … must be “clearly established.”

Bennett v. Murphy

127 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2000

Murphy’s Invocation of Qualified Immunity As is well established, qualified immunity is a doctrine that insulates the holder from trial, not just from liability. … Felsing: We thus hold, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hunter , that in deciding whether defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of “clearly established law” that is for

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2023

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability unless the alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Marley v. City of Allentown

774 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1991

A government official asserting qualified immunity must establish that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established at the time it was taken.’”