Case law

Hynson v. City of Chester

731 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1990

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the particularized right at issue here did not become clearly established until the Third Circuit’s decision in Hynson. … Under these circumstances, summary judgment in favor of the individual officers on qualified immunity grounds is appropriate. C.

Rankin v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

146 Pa. Commw. 429 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1992

Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the movant clearly establishes entitlement to judgment … The City concedes that section 21-701 operates as a waiver of immunity, but argues that despite the waiver of immunity, it is entitled to summary judgment because Rankin has failed to establish that Diamond acted negligently

Lambert v. Katz

8 A.3d 409 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2010

To defeat the defense of sovereign immunity, the plaintiff must also establish that his or her allegations fall within one of the nine enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in Section 8522(b) of the Code. … Under this definition, the shoulder is clearly part of the highway.

Valentine Co. v. Commonwealth

973 A.2d 1101 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2009

The [Temple Act] has clearly authorized increased financial assistance to Temple from the Commonwealth. … Thus, unlike immunity situations, the property is presumed to be subject to a lax unless specifically excluded and the taxpayer must establish that the property is exempt from taxation.

Agresta v. Goode

797 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1992

Even if defendants Lillie and Soltz are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity. … A defense of qualified immunity, however, cannot be successfully asserted on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Black v.

Johnson, A., Aplt. v. Wetzel, J.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2020

[J-99-2020] - 5 of care pursuant to which the Department was required to afford pre-deprivation process, and, moreover, the Department was immunized from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields … immunity was inapplicable because Bundy’s due process requirements were clearly established in 2013 by various judicial decisions; and the Department’s own internal policy statement, entitled DC- ADM-005 (relating to

Wimbish v. School District

59 Pa. Commw. 620 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1981

amendment of pleadings to allow full development of a party’s theories and averments “does not encompass a duty in the courts to allow successive amendments when the initial pleading indicates that the claim asserted cannot be established … Nor may appellant find relief in the other seven exceptions to the immunity bar.

Anderson v. Philadelphia

380 Pa. 528 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1955

In this appeal plaintiff concedes that the city was engaged in a governmental function, — which could render the city immune from liability; but insists that the testimony established the existence of a nuisance,— for which … And “it is true that municipalities are not clothed with immunity in certain cases, such as those involving highway construction, the building of public works, or the maintenance of a nuisance; these are well established

Home v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare

496 Pa. 204 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1981

Thus, any reliance on the alleged assurances made in 1975 was clearly unreasonable after D.P.W.’s refusal to relicense appellant in 1976. … the six-month limitation on actions is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity.

Gonzalez

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 2026

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be established by the official seeking immunity.32 To determine whether an official is entitled qualified immunity, a court must determine (1

Commonwealth v. Johnson

323 Pa. Super. 33 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1983

The court found that “[t]he testimony sought through th[e] requested grant of judicial use immunity ha[d] not been shown to be clearly exculpatory or essential in any case.” N.T. 46 (4/21/81). … As we have noted, the court in Smith held that “it would be appropriate for the immunity application to be denied” if the record “establishes that the public interest would be disserved by a grant of immunity to a defense

In Re: Adoption of the Pennsylvania Minor Judiciary Education Rules

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2023

(h) Program leaders or presenters shall be qualified with the practical and/or academic experience necessary to conduct the program effectively. … (e) At all hearings, the petitioner shall have the burden of proof of establishing compliance with these rules by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mines v. Kahle

557 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1983

Many courts have held that a qualified good-faith immunity applies to prosecutors acting in an investigative or administrative capacity. See, e.g., Jacobson v. … The Court stated: Because immunity is conferred on an individual solely by virtue of the office he holds, reason requires us to adopt a rule which does not provide immunity for those acts which are done clearly outside the

Carter v. Kane

938 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 1996

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds of (i) qualified immunity and (ii) the recent decision of Sandin v. Conner, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). … As to the qualified immunity question, as Judge Welsh’s R & R notes, R & R at 4, my 1993 memorandum found that Kane was not entitled to qualified immunity because Wolff’s requirement of an impartial hearing examiner was clearly

Snead v. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

2007 Pa. Super. 204 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2007

Although we will repeat several times infra that under Pennsylvania law, the animals are considered property, this court clearly recognizes that dogs as pets hold a unique place in many people’s lives as friend, companion … not make SPCA a “Commonwealth agency” for immunity purposes.

Kenney v. Jeanes Hospital

2001 Pa. Super. 48 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2001

and, thus, qualifies as a statutory employer. … Moreover, our review of the issue clearly indicates that it is completely without merit. ¶ 12 Appellants’ remaining issues are challenges to the constitutionality of the statutory employer defense.

Maybanks v. Ingraham

378 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 1974

brief concurring opinion joined by Justice Marshall, stressed his agreement “with the Court’s conclusion that existence of the requisite amount in controversy is not, on this record, clearly established. … Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and they are clearly entitled to relief.” 412 U. S. at 516 , 93 S.Ct. at 2228 .

Mazur v. Merck & Co., Inc.

767 F. Supp. 697 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1991

The second suggestion, one that was adopted by all of the participants at the meeting, was to lobby for the establishment of a no-fault compensation fund for children injured as a result of immunizations. … The October 1, 1980, Important Information Statement, the one used in the 1981-82 immunization drive, carefully and clearly describes the grave dangers which could result from measles, mumps, and rubella.

Carrow v. Philadelphia

371 Pa. 255 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1952

test prescribed by the Personnel Director and approved by the Civil Service Commission", and that those who failed so to qualify should "be dismissed from their positions within thirty days after the establishment of an … The Charter did not dress them in a new suit of immunity from dismissal. They had never had such immunity — and it was not given them by the Charter.

Black v. Labor Ready, Inc.

2010 Pa. Super. 72 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2010

The court further determined that the evidence clearly shows that Appellee was Appellant’s employer and that Appellee, therefore, is immune from suit. … Our Supreme Court has not definitively established whether the second element (successful maintenance) is strictly necessary to implicate judicial estoppel or is merely a factor favoring the application.