Case law

Aspinall v. Thomas

118 F. Supp. 3d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2015

If there was a violation of a constitutional right and the right was clearly established, then qualified immunity does not apply. … have failed to demonstrate that the right was not clearly established, the eourt cannot conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. Bitner

359 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2005

This doctrine, known as “qualified immunity,” provides not only a defense to liability, but “immunity from suit.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991); Mitchell v. … And none are protected by qualified immunity.

Checker Cab Phila. v. Phila. Parking Auth.

306 F. Supp. 3d 748 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 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 . … because the right asserted was not clearly established.

Druckenmiller v. United States

548 F. Supp. 193 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

As noted supra, the scope of the qualified immunity which the individual FBI agents retain is determined by reference to objective criteria; i.e., whether they violated “clearly established” law. … The Harlow court redefined the contours of the qualified immunity defense; we accordingly requested counsel to re-brief the qualified immunity issue. 2 .

Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Swope

554 B.R. 747 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2016

Appellant argues that Trustee Swope is not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated its clearly established rights and because a reasonable Chapter 7 Trustee would have believed that evicting Appellant from the … Appellant has failed to identify any authority establishing that a trustee is not entitled to immunity.

John Doe v. Pa. State Univ.

336 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2018

Whether the Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters argue that Mr. Doe's claim against them should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Roe was "clearly established." 70 Therefore, this Court will dismiss the individual capacity claims against Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters. 71 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Mr.

Martin-Mcfarlane v. City of Phila.

299 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2017

immunity falls to the official claiming it as a defense." 36 Establishing qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … to be resolved before determining whether [a] defendant's conduct violated a clearly established right." 44 A decision as to qualified immunity now, therefore, is premature. 45 2.

Bieros v. Nicola

839 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1993

or administrative duties, then they are only entitled to a qualified, good-faith immunity. … A qualified immunity only protects defendants if it can be shown .that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Hixon v. Durbin

560 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1983

Unfortunately, in announcing the new test for qualified immunity in Harlow , the Supreme Court expressly declined to define what criteria a rule of law would have to meet in order to be deemed “clearly established.” … Presumably, every principle of law which is essential to the conclusion that the defendant violated plaintiff’s rights must be “clearly established” for the qualified immunity defense to fail.

Mariano v. Borough of Dickson City

40 F. Supp. 3d 411 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

“A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. … They do not indicate what exactly they believe is not “clearly established” in law such that qualified immunity is appropriate, but simply assert that the doctrine applies.

Berkley Specialty Insurance Company v. Masterforce Construction Corp.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2021

judgment on the pleadings.27 Berkley asserts that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as, for five reasons, it owed no duty to indemnify Masterforce.28 First, Berkley contends that Masterforce’s conduct does not qualify … Galloway, 483 F.3d 258, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that, under the qualified immunity standard, a constitutional right is not clearly established when there are “conflicting decisions” in that area); Soares v.

Brautigam v. Fraley

684 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2010

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. … The court specifically distinguished the immunity for an employee of the Commonwealth versus the immunity conferred by statute upon the employee of a municipality: We note that the immunity defense provided by the General

Snyder v. Daugherty

899 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2012

“An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. … To this end, the Defendant Officers seek qualified immunity on the grounds that their actions were reasonable 'in light of clearly established federal law.

Doe v. Schuylkill County Courthouse

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2024

To determine whether an official is entitled qualified immunity, a court must determine (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established. … Pa. 2015) (denying qualified immunity where “the defendants have failed to demonstrate that the right was not clearly established”).

Pugh v. Mooney

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2024

Pugh also cites several cases discussing qualified immunity to argue that sovereign immunity does not apply. These cases are inapposite. Sovereign immunity and qualified immunity are distinct concepts. … Children & Youth Servs., 577 F.3d 186, 191 (3d Cir. 2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2020

“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 reasonable person … Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the

Kantamanto v. King

651 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2009

Thus, the Court must turn to the remaining prong of qualified immunity analysis: “whether ... defendant [North] is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that his conduct did ‘not violate clearly established statutory … The fact that the right is clearly established, however, does not end the qualified immunity analysis in the First Amendment retaliation context.

C.M. v. Southeast Delco School District

828 F. Supp. 1179 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1993

In order to obtain qualified immunity, each defendant must show that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Finally, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, because the kind of abuse alleged by plaintiff is a violation of *1192 clearly established constitutional rights, and because plaintiff makes sufficient allegations

Grant v. Riverside Corp.

364 Pa. Super. 593 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 21, 1987

Clearly, from a review of the above criteria, it is not mandatory that a contractor be the general contractor on a construction project to qualify as a statutory employer. … Clearly, this language is distinguishable from our Section 203, in its explicit extension of immunity to all contractors and subcontractors present at the job site and conducting the business of the injured employee’s direct

Sims v. Morton

421 U.S. 908 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1975