Case law

AUTERI v. VIA AFFILIATES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2023

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability “as the functioning of his immune system has been impaired by [Plaintiff’s] infection with COVID-19.” (Compl., ¶ 185.) … immunity.

George v. Morgan Construction Co.

389 F. Supp. 253 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1975

Defendant attacks Baccini’s testimony on two independent grounds: (1) that he was not qualified to testify as an expert, and (2) that his testimony did not establish an alternate design of the mill that would have been safer … The following principles would appear to be clearly established in the law of Pennsylvania: A.

HOPKINS v. SOUTH MOUNTAIN SECURE TREATMENT UNIT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2019

Yesser argues that qualified immunity prevents Hopkins from being able to state a claim. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”).

Roberts v. Berryhill

310 F. Supp. 3d 529 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2018

BACKGROUND On July 4, 1990, John Roberts and Bernard Wilkerson expressed to one another their intent to establish a common law marriage. (Br. in Supp. of Pl.'s App. For Att'y's Fees and Costs [Pl.'s Fees Mem.] at 2.) … The SSA's reversal clearly constituted a material change in the parties' legal relationship. 2. The material alteration was judicially sanctioned.

Fuoco v. Lehigh University

981 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2013

Thus, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: “(1) [s]he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … However, in Fuoco's response to Lehigh’s motion for summary judgment, she clearly states that she "suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder and Depression” and does not argue that any other condition qualifies as a disability

Felton v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

602 F. Supp. 10 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1984

The defendant may rebut the presumption by clearly setting forth a legitimate reason for plaintiff’s discharge (a burden of production only). … He was discharged despite his qualifications, and other qualified persons, not of his race, continued to work in that position. Thus, plaintiff has established his prima facie case. See Massarsky v.

Sunoco, Inc. v. Illinois National Insurance

503 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2007

That was clearly not the case here. … therefrom; the former are expenses to resolve liability that arise after the insured’s liability is established and as a result thereof.

Krier v. Amodio

441 F. Supp. 181 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1977

Clearly, each individual defendant is a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 1 , under which plaintiffs here sue for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. … It has been established, furthermore, that police officers are not absolutely immune from liability under these sections of the Civil Rights Act. Kauffman v.

United Transportation Union v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

23 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1998

Dismissal is proper “only when the claim ‘clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or ... is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’” Kehr Packages, Inc. v. … It was not until 1989, however, that the Supreme Court established a standard for differentiating between major and minor disputes.

OCKLEY v. RADNOR TOWNSHIP

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

Even if such a violation has occurred, government officials are protected from liability by qualified immunity as long as they do not “violate clearly established… constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity would shield the Individual Radnor Defendants, as there the Court finds no clearly established right which was violated here.

HOWARD v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2022

immunity, arguing that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot establish on the record evidence that they violated any of the federal statutory or constitutional rights for which he brought … As I grant summary judgment on the merits, I need not decide the issue of qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v.

Richardson v. Hamilton International Corp.

62 F.R.D. 413 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1974

The broad anti-fraud purposes of the statute and the rule would clearly be furthered by their application to this type of situation. … If a conflict later develops, an appropriate subclass can be established.

Bruch v. U.S. Coast Guard

749 F. Supp. 688 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1990

In this case, the court of appeals is clearly not, as the statute calls for, the court “having jurisdiction.” … To the contrary, the federal sovereign immunity case law, which the Reports discuss at length ... suggests that Congress would have understood the recovery of specific monies to be specific relief in this context.... _ It

In Re Commonwealth Financial Corporation

288 F. Supp. 786 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1968

However, this section clearly states that the trustees * * * may, subject to the approval of the judge, employ such person or persons as the judge may deem necessary for the purpose of assisting the trustee in performing … Since abuse of that discretion has not been established or even alleged, participation by the S.E.C. in the contemplated Section 167 investigation will be permitted. II.

O'LEARY v. Moyer's Landfill, Inc.

677 F. Supp. 807 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1988

Sovereign Immunity EPA next argues that it is protected from inclusion in this action by sovereign immunity. … . § 701 et seq., however, specifically establishes such a waiver with respect to equitable suits against administrative agencies.

FRAZIER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2020

Qualified immunity Evers and Boyle argue that, even if they violated Frazier’s and Vann’s rights, they are protected by qualified immunity. … In considering a claim for qualified immunity, all inferences must be taken in the plaintiff’s favor and the evidence must establish that the official’s conduct plausibly violated a constitutional right. McGreevy v.

Taylor v. Garwood

98 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2000

The defendants have also argued qualified immunity. … Because the Supreme Court has instructed us to decide the constitutional issues first and we have concluded no violation took place, we need not reach the qualified immunity issue.

Lyon v. Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education

543 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1982

by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal … Clearly, plaintiffs are concerned not only with the plan’s validity in the abstract but with its actual application in regard to them.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Brown

260 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 1966

But it is a traditional and important function of courts to reconcile such seeming conflicts in statutes and to give coherent implementation to legislative purposes clearly expressed in principle but less clearly in application … They are qualifiers, not nulli-fiers. Cf. Friese’s Estate, 317 Pa. 86, 88-89 , 176 A. 225 (1934).

Wajda v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance

528 F. Supp. 548 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1981

Although by this time Wajda had communicated her desire to return to direct placements (see Finding 20, §upra), she was not considered, and she was clearly not qualified, for DuPont’s position. 34. … Since Burdine , the defendant does not have the burden of establishing that the person selected was more qualified than the plaintiff. 450 U.S. at 258-259 , 101 S.Ct. at 1094 . 8 .