Case law

In Re Petition to Compel Cooperation With Child Abuse Investigation

2005 Pa. Super. 188 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2005

On appeal the defendants argued the grant of summary judgment in their favor was appropriate because they were entitled to immunity for their actions under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The court held that the Social Services caseworker and the police officer were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, as the trier of fact could conclude that reasonable persons in their positions

Miseo v. Ross Township Police Department

147 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1992

Because traffic signals are power-operated traffic-control devices, flares cannot qualify as traffic signals. … Township, liability cannot be imposed on Township under the governmental immunity exception at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(4).

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

Kocher v. Larksville Borough

926 F. Supp. 2d 579 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2013

This prong “of the qualified immunity analysis therefore ‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’ ” Montanez … Kocher claims that Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity by simply stating that a “stigma-plus” claim is clearly established.

Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit No. 19 v. Stephens

98 Pa. Commw. 127 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1986

And Section 7107, while it uses the term “discharge,” qualifies it as being a discharge implemented because a reduction in force is necessary. … This Section contained a privileges and immunities clause.

Smith v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

700 A.2d 587 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 1997

On April 18,1996, DOT filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it is immune from suit pursuant to section 8522(a) of what is commonly referred to as the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act), 2 and that it is not within … establishes its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Evans v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

149 Pa. Commw. 376 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1992

8522(b) sovereign immunity exception. … In the present case, the undisputed facts clearly reveal that Andrea Denise Evans’ injuries stemmed from the attack perpetrated by three female SEPTA passengers.

Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Saccone

894 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2012

Nonetheless, FFRF suggests that, to qualify as a legislative act, there must be some allocation of resources or regulation of behavior. (Doc. 19 at 18). This argument is unpersuasive. … The court is compelled to shine a clear, bright light on this resolution because it pushes the Establishment Clause envelope behind the safety glass of legislative immunity.

Sarin v. Magee

333 F. Supp. 3d 475 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2018

Although the concepts of Eleventh Amendment immunity and sovereign immunity are sometimes treated as interchangeable, in fact sovereign immunity applies more broadly. Lombardo v. Pennsylvania, Dep't of Pub. … Int'l , 135 F.3d 876 , 890 (3d Cir. 1998), the Supreme Court has yet to find a case that qualifies. See Kelly v. Jones, 148 F.Supp.3d 395 , 405 n.2 (E.D.

Scicchitano v. County of Northumberland

112 F. Supp. 3d 293 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2015

The decision to privatize the Weatherization Department is clearly one which generally regulates the affairs of the county. … Plaintiffs initially argued that a preliminary injunction would-serve the public interest because it would ensure the continued and uninterrupted services to the community members qualifying for services.

Jacobs v. Merrymead Farm, Inc.

799 A.2d 980 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2002

Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer. … The affirmative defense, however, must be clearly applicable on the face of the complaint.

Willowby Ex Rel. McKoy v. City of Philadelphia

946 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1996

Qualified Immunity The United States Supreme Court provided the current standard for “good faith” or “qualified” immunity in Harlow v. … The defendant officers do not merit qualified immunity here.

Palmer v. Bartosh

959 A.2d 508 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2008

A demurrer can only be sustained where the complaint clearly is insufficient to establish the pleader’s right to relief. County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 360 , 490 A.2d 402 (1985). … The Act waives governmental immunity only for certain negligent acts of the agency or its employees; where the employee’s conduct is intentional in nature, the local agency retains its governmental immunity. 42 Pa.C.S. §

Ekwunife v. City of Philadelphia

245 F. Supp. 3d 660 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2017

“Ultimately, whether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity depends on whether she establishes that she was functioning as the state’s ‘advocate’ while engaging in the alleged conduct that gives rise to the constitutional … In Buckley, the Supreme Court found that a prosecutor’s alleged fabrication of false evidence during the preliminary investigation of an unsolved crime was protected only by qualified immunity, not absolute immunity.

Gustafson, M. v. Springfield 282 A.3d 739

282 A.3d 739 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2022

Hudec’s gun and interstate commerce had clearly ended by the time he brought the gun into his home for personal use. … PLCAA therefore grants total immunity from common-law liability to the gun industry whenever the Acts applies.

Harrell v. Porter

19 Pa. D. & C.2d 385 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County · Dec 26, 1958

Plaintiff’s averments as to the place of the alleged negligent acts clearly establish that the locus in quo was on or about that portion of the Pennsylvania Turnpike which is subject to the provisions of the Western Pennsylvaina … The Ewalt decision established the rule that, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the commission is immune from liability for negligent acts of its employes.

Hansberry v. City of Philadelphia

232 F. Supp. 2d 404 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2002

Defendants’ Claims of Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that plaintiffs’ claims against the individual officers are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … If the plaintiff fails to make out a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity inquiry is at an end; the officer is entitled to immunity.” Bennett v. Murphy, 274 F.3d 133, 136 (3d Cir.2002).

Lindenmuth

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2026

) whether those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident. … Barkes, 575 U.S. 822, 825 (2015) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the

Lykins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

552 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1998

While I agree that Appellant herein is exempted, I am compelled nonetheless to write to emphasize that the analysis employed by the Commonwealth Court in its published opinion is erroneous and contrary to established case … of the recently enacted Sovereign Immunity Act.

DILLEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2026

Because the Complaint does not show that Officer Dilley’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is premature. … violate a clearly established constitutional right” and therefore “dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature” (citing Thomas, 463 F.3d at 291)); see also Newland v.