Case law

SERRANO v. WITTIK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2021

Administrative or investigative actions are only protected by qualified immunity, Van de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 342 (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, n.33), unless they relate directly to the conduct of a criminal trial. … The test is whether the actions clearly serve the prosecutorial function. If they do, the prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity.

Hicks v. Arthur

843 F. Supp. 949 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1994

A prima facie case may be established by showing that the employee (1) belongs to a racial minority; (2) was qualified for the job from which he was discharged; and that (3) others not in the protected class were treated … Common law principles do establish an exception to the general rule when an employee has been terminated in violation of a “significant, clearly mandated public policy.” Brown v. St.

ESTATE OF VINCENZO RUDI v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2025

Notably, Section 8550 does not null immunity for Sections 8541 and 8542, which relate to governmental immunity, and so reference to Section 8550 does nothing to advance Plaintiffs’ argument. B. … The Amended Complaint does not clearly articulate the theory underlying Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim against the City.

United States v. Jones

404 F. Supp. 529 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1975

Lewis immunity to compel his testimony. In United States v. … Lewis immunity so that the defendant could have obtained his testimony.

Flinn v. Lawless

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2025

While police officers are generally entitled to qualified immunity for claims involving use of force, Kisela v. … As the Court noted, it would be premature to address qualified immunity at this junction. However, the Court highlights that Flinn’s brief appears to conflate sovereign and qualified immunity.

United States v. McDade

827 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 1993

McDade’s brief require a pretrial hearing to establish the existence of a conspiracy. … outside the boundaries which the Supreme Court has established for the Speech or Debate Clause.

Berndt v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc.

629 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 1985

However, the evidence at trial established at most that plaintiff was least qualified at the time of required reduction in force. … question of whether Kaiser discriminated against plaintiff is close but the court cannot conclude that a jury could not rationally find that age was a determining factor in plaintiff’s termination or that the verdict was so clearly

Gerber v. Schofield

43 F.2d 222 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1930

Such conflicts when they arise are dealt with under the well-established principles of comity. There is no averment of any such conflict here* so we pass by this question. … A brewer who puts #out a 2 per cent, beer might under a regelating law hold a United States permit to deal in it and would clearly be guilty of no offense under any law of the United States; he would however just as clearly

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital

834 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1993

The evidence clearly showed that,, in many instances, life skills that had been possessed by the residents at the time of their admission had been destroyed. … Asserting that a “bright line” has been established by Puerto Rico Aqueduct, they contend that Appendix A has been transformed from permitted prospective relief into prohibited compensatory relief.

Sowell v. Kelly Services, Inc.

139 F. Supp. 3d 684 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2015

Sowell “has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. … Otherwise Qualified The ADA defines a “qualified individual” as one “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2022

The Supreme Court has identified two types of immunity applicable to § 1983 claimsabsolute immunity and qualified immunity.4 Id. (citing Buckley v. … Dawson, 969 F.2d 5 Where a prosecutor is acting outside of their role as an advocate, they are only afforded qualified immunity rather than absolute.

Vassalotti v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

732 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2010

The loan docs clearly state the new mortgage amount and the zero escrow account balance. … Vassalotti clearly alleges each of these elements. 6 Thus, I will deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count IV. C.

In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litigation

92 F.R.D. 398 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1981

Horstmyer was present in this jurisdiction solely to give testimony and “[i]t is well established in the federal courts that an individual is immune from process when he is present in a jurisdiction solely to give testimony … Prejudice Clearly, plaintiff will not be greatly prejudiced should this default be set aside.

Shesko v. City of Coatesville

292 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2003

Under this framework, Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by showing (i) that she belongs to a protected category; (ii) that she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer … Defendant vaguely argues this point but cannot clearly articulate which allegations should not be considered because Plaintiff has failed to establish any sort of coherent time line for the alleged harassment. 6 .This also

In Re Residential Doors Antitrust Litigation

900 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1995

Each plea agreement also includes similar sections regarding cooperation and immunity for its officers, agents, and employees. … Individuals Who May Qualify for Immunity The United States agrees that each present officer, agent or employee of Premdor Inc.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

505 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1980

They do not apply to a clearly defined category of evidence, as the former testimony exception does. … Plaintiffs’ litigation strategy, as clearly explained by Mr.

United States v. Washington

614 F. Supp. 144 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1985

Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972) (prosecution must establish the admissibility of a confession by at least a preponderance of the evidence). … A clearly articulated, non-fact specific standard is also more easily administered that the Robertson test.

Ethanol Partners Accredited v. Wiener, Zuckerbrot, Weiss & Brecher

635 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1985

Once personal jurisdiction has been challenged, the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish that the court properly has jurisdiction over the parties. Wright v. … The plaintiffs have the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the unwilling defendants.

Iseley v. Dragovich

236 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2002

However, Attachment C to the protocol clearly identifies certain psychological conditions which, if present, would serve to exclude certain patients from treatment. … Harrison concerned a motion by defendants for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Id. 9 .

Cohen v. Community College of Philadelphia

484 F. Supp. 411 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1980

The right not to be retaliated against for filing such a complaint is clearly a right “created by Title VII.” … Clearly, this plan does not require the recommending officer to accept and recommend minority candidates whenever they can be found.