Case law

Walton v. Spherion Staffing LLC

152 F. Supp. 3d 403 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2015

Spheribn places great emphasis on case law establishing that “[a]n employee who is a direct threat to the safety of himself or others is not a qualified individual with a disability.” Coleman v. Penn. … he was otherwise qualified for the job, see, e.g., id. at 87 n. 10; EEOC v.

In re National Football League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation

307 F.R.D. 351 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2015

In conclusion, the Settlement Class Notice clearly described of the terms of the Settlement and the rights of Class Members to opt out or object. … scientific evidence in the record establish that the Qualifying Diagnoses and their maximum awards are reasonable.

N.B.A. Credit Union, Inc. v. Hargrove

834 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1993

Privileges and Immunities Clause The privileges and immunities clause, U.S. Const., Art. … Therefore, it is unlikely that Credit Union can establish a violation of the privileges and immunities clause. E.

Blessing v. United States

447 F. Supp. 1160 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1978

Further, the United States is immune from suit unless Congress waives that immunity, Dalehite v. … Since the United States is immune from suit unless it has consented to be sued, Feres v.

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.

McGrath v. Johnson

67 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 1999

To exhaust the formal grievance procedure established by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, a prisoner must first file a grievance. … Sovereign Immunity The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars damage claims for state law torts against employees of Commonwealth agencies acting within the scope of their duties, except for several narrow enumerated exceptions

Townsend v. Frame

587 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 1984

Therefore, plaintiff’s claim against Freeman clearly must be dismissed. … It would likewise appear that the district attorney’s immunity extends to his investigator for those acts undertaken as part of the quasi-judicial process of initiating a prosecution. Atkins v.

Stokes v. Lecce

384 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 11, 1974

On the one hand, they could infer that Lecce actually felt that Stokes was not qualified, but that he didn’t want to run the risk that Stokes would be found qualified after a hearing. … Qualified officials whose names have been submitted by the Racing Associations have been automatically approved. (N.T. 126-27; 283).

Downs v. Department of Public Welfare

368 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1973

Nevertheless, there are claims of psychological pressure and more direct punitive measures to induce labor and, at least as to two of the named plaintiffs such clearly coercive conduct is specifically alleged. … Thus, sufficient facts have been pled in the complaint so as to allow the Court to determine that the action here is not clearly frivolous. No purpose is served by isolating on a particular plaintiff at this point.

Alberton v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance

264 F.R.D. 203 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2010

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant did not adhere to the mandatory pricing scheme established by these sections by failing to charge the appropriate discounted rate for qualified purchasers of title insurance. B. … The Certification Order established two subclasses, pursuant to the following class definition: The class shall consist of all persons or entities who, from July 25, 2000 until August 1, 2005, paid premiums for the purchase

Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. McCulloch

168 F.R.D. 516 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 1996

Whether or not such bills qualify for work product protection, the billing records clearly are subject to the attorney-client privilege “to the extent that they reveal litigation strategy and/or the nature of services performed … Here, the disclosures were clearly made to adversaries, and the question facing us is whether the circumstances of the disclosures constitute a waiver. .

Morrill v. Weaver

224 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2002

If the Commonwealth defines “qualified electors” who are permitted to verify election petition signatures such that the phrase includes only registered voters, then the statute is clearly unconstitutional under Buckley v. … In this ease, Plaintiffs must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Pennsylvania’s law violates their protected constitutional rights.

Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

162 F.R.D. 471 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1995

Adequacy of Representation To establish adequate representation, “(a) the plaintiffs attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and (b) the plaintiff must not have interests … Significantly, the court noted that the class consisted of "twenty-eight clearly defined members,” id. at 381 , "all located within a small geographic area,” id. at 378 , whose alleged injuries were traceable to the distribution

GUERRIER v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2023

Moreover, the undisputed facts show that Trooper Avdulla is entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, Trooper Avdulla is immune from liability so long as he could reasonably believe probable cause supported the seizure in light of “clearly established” law. See id. at 638-39.

SUNIAGA v. DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2020

Qualified Immunity The Third Circuit has stated that, at the pleading stage, “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

White v. Beal

447 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1978

However, a review of the legislative background of this particular Act leads to the conclusion that it was clearly the intent of Congress to authorize an award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff in a suit brought … As a result there is no established market to use as a basic foundation for the purpose of determining the market value of these services.

Wilson v. Pennsylvania State Police Department

964 F. Supp. 898 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1997

DISCUSSION In order to sustain a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that he is qualified, that is, with or without reasonable accommodation … Without his corrective eyewear, plaintiff would clearly be incapable of performing the duties required of a state trooper.

In re Keyes

344 F. Supp. 3d 803 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2018

Such behavior is clearly abuse of the judicial process. … Accordingly, because Keyes has sued Judge Harris for acts taken in her judicial capacity, judicial immunity clearly applies and there is no legal basis for any of her lawsuits against Judge Harris. C.

Trading Co. of North America, Inc. v. Bristol Township Authority

47 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1999

II § 160-22 (1992) (stating that sewer system was established for health and welfare of the citizens of the Township). … DISMISSED without 1 .All facts are taken either from.the parties’ uncontested submissions or the agreed facts summarized by the Third Circuit in its ruling dismissing an appeal pertaining to a claim of qualified immunity.

Dann v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORP.

708 F. Supp. 2d 481 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2010

The Company clearly cannot exercise the discretion afforded in § 5.3 if fiduciaries discontinue the LNC Common Stock Fund as an investment option. … For the reasons discussed above, I will deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as qualified by this Memorandum.