Case law

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. .

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.

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.

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.

Arthur v. United States

299 F. Supp. 2d 431 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2003

This information was clearly available to it when it filed its original motion to dismiss. … Accordingly, it has not established that venue is improper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. V.

Paddison v. Fidelity Bank

60 F.R.D. 695 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1973

If plaintiffs lose, class handling of past damage issues is clearly inappropriate and a moot issue. … Such an award would normally be made to prevailing defendants only if the case had been unreasonably brought, but prevailing plaintiffs, having established forbidden discrimination, would almost always qualify for such an

Whaumbush v. City of Philadelphia

747 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2010

to establish a causal link.” … Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claim must be dismissed pursu *521 ant to the doctrine of intracorporate immunity.

Mattingly v. Elias

325 F. Supp. 1374 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1971

maintenance work was either non-existen[t], or slipshod or non-completed, and this caused continual deterioration of the properties. 20 It was his opinion that none of the maintenance men employed at Warminster Heights were qualified … Harris and the cited decisions of various courts of appeals, this Court must conclude that plaintiffs cannot establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . V.

Lojeski v. Boandl

626 F. Supp. 530 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1985

In addition, defendants claim that the plaintiff has failed to establish that she was the prevailing party. … Defendants’ liability with regard to this violation has already been established.

BATCHELOR v. LITTLE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2022

is not a “clearly established” violated constitutional right.”148 We need not decide whether acting Secretary Little and former Secretary Wetzel are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity because we determined they … Our Court of Appeals in Porter ultimately granted summary judgment to defendants on the ground they were entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Porter’s Eighth Amendment rights had not been clearly established.

LEE v. CITY OF CHESTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … A court resolving a qualified immunity question must determine whether the facts alleged clearly establish a constitutional right and demonstrate that a constitutional right was violated. See Pearson v.

United States v. Oliver

410 F. Supp. 739 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1976

The evidence in this case, viewed in a light most favorable to the government, is clearly sufficient to establish that “Chuckie” and/or Ricky Broekington had knowledge that the defendant intended to distribute heroin, agreed … The rule is qualified in the following manner: This rule is qualified by a number of exceptions stated in terms of the capacity of the evidence to prove some specific fact or issue such as intent, plan, scheme or design.

WILLIAMS v. STICKNEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2023

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity . . . unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … The retaliation defendants purport to rely on the “clearly established” prong to support their qualified immunity argument. But their contentions boil down to a challenge to the constitutional violation prong.

Willmore v. American Atelier, Inc.

72 F. Supp. 2d 526 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1999

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, the plaintiff must therefore show three elements: (1) that he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that he is otherwise qualified to perform … Willmore was clearly qualified to perform the essential functions of his job (given that he continued to perform it despite his alleged injury), we find no evidence that •the basis for the plaintiffs termination was anything

ROSADO v. CITY OF COATESVILLE PA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2020

Defendants have the burden of establishing qualified immunity. Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (3d Cir. 2010). … Qualified immunity protects state actors who have committed constitutional violations if the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Pearson v.

STRINGER v. COUNTY OF BUCKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2023

Qualified immunity protects government officials “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly’ established at the time … The qualified immunity inquiry is premature at this stage of the litigation.

Jackson v. Associated Hosp. Serv. of Philadelphia

414 F. Supp. 315 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1976

Blue Cross is “a corporation not-for-profit organized and existing to establish, maintain and operate a nonprofit hospital plan whereby hospitalization and related health benefits are provided to subscribers to such plan. … Although the language may differ from plan to plan, the eight-month waiting period to qualify for benefits for normal childbirth remains the same.

SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

427 F. Supp. 1089 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 1976

Clearly the grant of United States patents on Keflin and Keflex'does not immunize Lilly from the impact of the antitrust laws if it misuses its monopoly power. See United States v. … Defendant’s Exhibit D-1119, at 16, clearly demonstrates this fact.