Case law

Kuhn v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

80 F.R.D. 681 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1978

We also believe that the plaintiffs themselves are well-qualified to represent this class. … We agree with plaintiffs that this action qualifies under Rule 23(b)(2). See Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., supra.

Gay v. Watkins

579 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 1984

Crystal, therefore, clearly acted in good faith and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Harlow v. … Furthermore, the reporter failed to raise the immunity defense.

In Re Air Crash Disaster at Mannheim, Germany

586 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 1984

The Brown case has not clearly delineated the elements of the government contractor defense. … McKay listed the following as elements of the government contractor defense: (1) the United States is immune from liability under Feres and Stencel, (2) the supplier proves that the United States established, or approved,

Dufner v. Penn Central Transportation Company

374 F. Supp. 979 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1974

Professor Cox theorized that Accardi was clearly a turning point in judicial interpretation of the seniority provisions of the Act. In Fishgold v. … ARTICLE II QUALIFYING EMPLOYEES 1.

Zeffiro v. First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co.

473 F. Supp. 201 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1979

Although it was clear that a nationwide solution, which would establish clearly defined obligations, was needed, there was concern that additional federal intrusions into capital markets would be dangerous at a time when … Fourth, we find that the goal of imposing a nationally uniform solution, which establishes uniform and clearly defined obliga *210 tions, is best achieved by providing a federal forum.

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. McGinnes

179 F. Supp. 578 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1959

The complete immunity of a federal agency from state interference is well established. (Emphasis added). [citations]. … United States of America in the discharge of their official duties, whether or not there is any express statutory provision for immunity.”

Friedman v. Israel Labour Party

957 F. Supp. 701 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1997

In sum, by publishing an allegedly defamatory article the effects of which would clearly be felt in Pennsylvania, and by regularly circulating newspapers in Pennsylvania, Globe purposefully availed itself of the privilege … Triangle Publications, Inc., 442 Pa. 319 , 275 A.2d 53 (1971) (the qualified fair report immunity is forfeited by any “abuses [of] the occasion” or by exaggerated additions or embellishments in the account); Williams v.

Lehner v. Crane Co.

448 F. Supp. 1127 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1978

Although there is little case law on the effect of vacation pay on the date of termination, the record clearly establishes that both parties intended March 29,1974, to be Mr. … For these reasons, 16 I find that plaintiff has failed to establish that he was entitled to the increased pension benefits.

Wilkinson v. Rosenthal & Co.

712 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1989

Clearly, parts of this information are directly contrary to the information supplied to Rosenthal by plaintiff when he opened the account. … Clearly, while Jaffe may be well respected in the field of finance and securities trading, he has no professional stature in the field of commodity futures.

RAHMAN v. BOROUGH OF GLENOLDEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2020

Qualified Immunity & Absolute Immunity The individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their personal capacities in relationship to the enforcement of Chapter 61. … The facts as alleged do not establish that individual Defendants knowingly violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Kline Ex Rel. Arndt v. Mansfield

454 F. Supp. 2d 258 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2006

To establish a claim for civil rights liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 , a plaintiff must show: (1) a defendant was acting under color of state law; and (2) that actor deprived them of a right, privilege, or immunity … To establish a claim for civil rights liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 , Plaintiffs are required to show a deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or federal law

United States v. Rocky Mountain Holdings, Inc.

782 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2011

Schreiber’s declarations, based solely upon his personal knowledge, would qualify as hearsay. … Defendant contends that, even if Plaintiff establishes that the initial transfers were fraudulent, Defendant is immune from judgment as a good faith transferee who took for value.

Sine v. Rockhill Mennonite Home

275 F. Supp. 3d 538 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2017

Plaintiff has alleged' sufficient facts at this juncture to establish that she was entitled to FMLA leave. … The Third Circuit has instructed that to state a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that she: (1) has a disability; (2) is qualified to perform the duties of her job; and (3) has

WILLIAMS v. RUSSELL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2021

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must “plead[ ] facts showing that (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … To overcome the assertion of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff must sufficiently plead not only a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, but also a violation of a clearly-established

Central W. Rental Co. v. Horizon Leasing, a Division of Horizon Financial, F.A.

740 F. Supp. 1109 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1990

Has plaintiff met the well established standards so that it is entitled its requested relief? … In seeking immunity from injunctive relief, defendant (collectively, the “FDIC”), invokes the Financial Institutions Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) § 212 (12 U.S.C. § 1821®, as amended) which provides the

Mendez v. Chater

943 F. Supp. 503 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1996

If the claimant cannot qualify under the Listings, the analysis proceeds to the fourth and fifth steps. … This type of steroid can cause profound and varied metabolic effects as well as modifying the body’s immune responses. Physicians’ Desk Reference, 2595 (50th ed. 1996). 5 .

Cox v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.

704 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 1989

At first glance, the language of section (b) would seem to clearly indicate Congress’ intent to preempt the states from regulating pesticide labeling. … Based on the above, we are not convinced that Congress intended to preempt the entire field of pesticide labeling thus immunizing manufacturers from state tort claims alleging inadequate warnings.

United States Ex Rel. Berberian v. Cliff

300 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 1969

of immunity. … Nor do we believe that members of the judiciary have the right to grant immunity in the absence of statutory authority.

Stefanowicz v. Mathews

443 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1977

The judge’s findings were set forth clearly after a thorough evaluation of the evidence. The evaluation contains references to the exhibits filed in the ease. … The judge’s finding that plaintiff did not qualify for the interim presumption under this section, therefore, is also supported by substantial evidence.

LaRochelle v. Wilmac Corp.

210 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2016

To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under Title VII, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment … Simply put, she has failed to establish that she is a qualified individual with a disability as contemplated by the ADA.