Case law

Pearson v. Vaughn

102 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2000

Qualiñed Immunity Defendant Murray argues that he is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … “As government officials engaged in discretionary functions, [defendants are qualifiedly immune from suits brought against them for damages under section 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Commonwealth v. Franklin

397 Pa. Super. 265 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1990

The record clearly establishes that Mr. … Because the record clearly indicates that Mr.

Shedrick v. William Penn School District

654 A.2d 163 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1995

real property exception to local agency immunity. … For cases which have clearly defined this principle, see Fitchett v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp.

Mertz v. Temple University Hospital

25 Pa. D. & C.4th 541 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 28, 1995

Litostansky clearly led to the decision to discharge Mr. Litostansky. Thus, the chain of causation was established, and there was no conflicting evidence on gross negligence. … Pinsker’s unfamiliarity with the Pennsylvania statute did not render him un *563 qualified to be an expert in psychiatry. The court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying Dr.

Nelson v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

244 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2002

Before weighing in on the contentious question of whether Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity, it is prudent to ask first whether plaintiff qualifies for relief under this provision of the ADA. … In the Chief Judge's opinion, "the ordinary meanings of `activity' and `program' clearly encompass those that take place in prisons." Id.

Kuzel v. Krause

658 A.2d 856 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 1995

A claim for wrongful discharge is made out when the plaintiff establishes that his or her discharge is a violation of a clearly definable right that “strikes at the heart of citizens’ social right, duties and responsibilities … Because of our Supreme Court’s interpretation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 8550, willful misconduct requires Employees here to establish more than wrongful discharge to make the defense of official immunity unavailable to Krause.

Gass, M., Pets. v. 52nd Judicial District

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2020

Responding to the District’s argument, however, that Petitioners do not qualify for immunity since the Policy turns on an additional factor -- namely, Petitioners’ status as probationers -- we find that this circumstance … Accord Nelson, 195 P.3d at 832 (“When a qualifying patient uses medical marijuana in accordance with the MMA, he is 6 The District’s reliance on the ejusdem generis principle to suggest that immunity should apply only

Flood v. Silfies

933 A.2d 1072 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2007

The Supreme Court then noted that the criteria for establishing local agency immunity changed as a result of its decision in Sphere Drake, which broadened the factors that must be analyzed in determining whether an entity … Appellees assert that the test for determining whether a volunteer fire company is entitled to immunity under the PSTCA was established in Guinn , and it was not modified or overruled by either Sphere Drake or Christy .

Ferrone v. Onorato

439 F. Supp. 2d 442 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2006

Defendants fail to establish that Plaintiffs’ claim is not viable under the Constitution. … The defense of official immunity is an affirmative defense which must be established by the defendants.

Allen v. County of Wayne

88 A.3d 1035 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2013

Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by failing to address his claim that improper maintenance of the lawn tractor’s reverse warning mechanism qualified as an exception to governmental immunity. … The immunity defense, however, must be clearly applicable on the face of the complaint. Id.

Weston v. City of Philadelphia

82 F. Supp. 3d 637 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2015

Immunity of Savoy The City Defendants argue that, in the event that the Court were to find that there was a constitutional violation, Savoy is nevertheless immune from suit. We agree. … While the Court of Appeals has not clearly defined when situations fall within these categories, in B.S. the court expanded the immunity granted in Ernst and has held that a social worker’s investigative activities performed

Marker v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

677 A.2d 345 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1996

realty as required by the Sovereign Immunity Act. 2. … Clearly, Marker had the burden in this matter and the record reveals that Marker failed to satisfy his burden. Therefore, the trial court erred in not granting DOT’s motion for post-trial relief.

Hayduk v. City of Johnstown

580 F. Supp. 2d 429 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2008

Silka was a public official at the time he terminated Plaintiffs employment, and as such was “entitled to qualified immunity from damage liability” if his firing of Plaintiff did not “violate clearly established statutory … Express, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 416, 421 (E.D.Pa.1995), the issue of qualified immunity is decided based on whether the law was clearly established at the time of the official’s actions. Williams v.

De Botton v. Marple Township

689 F. Supp. 477 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1988

Are the Individual Defendants entitled to Immunity? Municipal legislators are absolutely immune from civil rights damages actions, provided that they are acting in their legislative capacities. Aitchison v. … Thornburg Township, 839 F.2d 151 (3d.Cir.1988) (township supervisor entitled to qualified immunity in connection with conduct regarding proposed subdivision plan).

Napoli v. Bianco

342 Pa. Super. 235 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 1985

and permanent” as to qualify as an exception to the tort immunity provisions of the No-Fault Act. … This afforded the trial court an opportunity to grant a new trial on the basis of a recent decision which reversed a previously established rule.

Posner v. Lankenau Hospital

645 F. Supp. 1102 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1986

Parker Immunity Defendants assert that they are immune from federal antitrust liability pursuant to the “state action” immunity doctrine, which was first enunciated in Parker v. … The Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act provides members of hospital peer review committees with qualified immunity from civil liability. 63 P.S. § 425.3(b)(1).

Petula v. Mellody

158 Pa. Commw. 212 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 1993

Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in favor of the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of … Malia and Goralski clearly do not stand for the broad proposition that school superintendents are immune from suit in a defamation action.

Mitchell v. W.S. Cumby & Son, Inc.

704 F. Supp. 65 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1989

These facts clearly establish that Cumby controlled or occupied the premises. … This evidence, in combination with the contractual evidence, clearly establishes that Cumby entrusted part of its regular business to RVS.

Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

912 F. Supp. 148 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1996

They argued that there was insufficient evidence to permit the district court to find a material issue of fact that they participated in the alleged beating and that therefore, they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Here, Movants base their request on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit because there is no evidence that they participated in any discriminatory conduct.

Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare v. Ludlow Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

473 Pa. 299 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1977

Count II of the Commonwealth’s complaint, also in assumpsit, avers that if a recipient qualifies for both the state medical assistance program and the federal medicare program, federal regulations require that the testing … The Legislature, by the Act of May 20, 1937, P.L. 728, No. 193, § 1, et seq., as amended 72 P.S. § 4651-1, et seq., established the Board of Arbitration of Claims.