Case law

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.

Brown v. Beal

404 F. Supp. 770 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 1975

The legislative history of the Act moreover clearly demonstrates that Congress was concerned with preventing just such inequities as this case dramatically demonstrates. … Thus, an individual with an income just under the specified limit may qualify for all of the aid provided under the State plan.

Main Line Paving Co. v. Board of Education

725 F. Supp. 1349 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1989

It believed that contract specifications were being drawn too restrictively so that only certain contractors qualified to bid on them. … Clearly, less intrusive race-neutral means are available.

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.

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 .

Horizons International, Inc. v. Baldridge

624 F. Supp. 1560 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1986

The certificate holder and the members identified in the certificate, have virtual immunity from federal and state government civil and criminal antitrust or unfair competition suits____ This virtual immunity extends to the … The Act clearly limits certification to export conduct.

Green v. United States Steel Corp.

570 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1983

Discovery had established that Green had falsified his employment history on his job application. … his rejection; and whether, if plaintiff could establish a prima facie case, plaintiff could establish that USS’s articulated reason for rejecting him was a standard applied equally to all races or was, rather, a mere pretext

Lepre v. William F. Butler

394 F. Supp. 185 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1975

Defendants, being individual members and/or officers of the Parole Board claim as a complete-defense, official immunity. … What if any damages plaintiff will be able to establish must also await further factual determinations.

Roach v. Kligman

412 F. Supp. 521 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1976

The difficulty with this argument is, if the plaintiff does not rely on some direct participation by the defendants in the improper medical treatment, the defendants may well be cloaked in qualified official immunity. … As to the cold and leaky cell, the plaintiff’s deposition establishes that he did not ask to be moved; the Aytch affidavit establishes that if the plaintiff was in such a cell, Aytch did not know about it and it was contrary

United States ex rel. Yates v. Rundle

326 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1971

United States, 419 F.2d 695 (D.C.Cir. 1969), a Fifth Amendment case, the court found that Alderman “clearly establishes that notwithstanding any past indications to the contrary, appellant has no standing to complain of any … Co-indictees are qualified to testify under this rule. Commonwealth v. Farrell, 319 Pa. 441 , 181 A. 217 (1935).

United States Ex Rel. Merena v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

114 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2000

A review of the record shows clearly that all of Mr. … I recognize that it is primarily the obligation of the relator to establish the extent of relator’s contributions, but I find that there is in the record sufficient evidence to establish his entitlement to a share well in

Croker v. Boeing Co.(Vertol Div.)

437 F. Supp. 1138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1977

Although DeBose evidently was a good worker, he did not establish that he was qualified for a supervisory position. I accept his supervisor’s opinion that he was not so qualified. … An inference of purposeful discrimination might be possible if Craig had established clearly that at the time his application was on file, whites were hired who were less qualified than he.

Alonzo v. Blue Cross of Greater Philadelphia

611 F. Supp. 310 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 1984

Applicable Legal Standards The state statutory scheme here at issue clearly does not permit reimbursement to nonlicensed professionals. … Supreme Court will substitute “liability” for "immunity” in future reprints of Hoover v. Ronwin.

Hertzke v. Riley

715 F. Supp. 117 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 8, 1989

I find that they do not. *120 The FWPP was established as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 and is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 8521 . … Accordingly, I do not reach the issues of the statute of limitations and qualified immunity. An appropriate Order follows.

BIONDINO v. BUCKS COUNTY TECHNICAL SCHOOL AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2025

immunity, but this is incorrect; the Authority is a municipal entity, and as such is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Dist., 877 F.3d 136, 145 (3d Cir. 2017) (explaining that municipal entities are not eligible for qualified immunity).

United States v. Francis

144 F. 520 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1906

who had read newspaper comments on either the Story Cotton Company or the defendant that morning were excused from service on the jury, and only those selected who had seen no such articles on that day, and who further qualified … As to the arrest during the trial, we are of the opinion the District Attorney acted clearly within his right and performed his duty as a prosecuting attorney with due regard to the rights of the defendant.

Gobitis v. Minersville School Dist.

21 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1937

In these words that eminent jurist clearly stated the principle which underlies the constitutional provisions of all the states and which is one of the fundamental bases upon which our nation was founded, namely, that individuals … The only provision of the Federal Constitution on the subject is contained in the First Amendment and that merely prohibits Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

United States v. Shober

489 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1979

Defendant Shober seeks an evidentiary hearing to establish the fact that neither the Department of Justice nor the United States Attorney’s office in this district have *400 established or use any guidelines in making these … Now, you understand that in connection with that grant of use immunity that the grant of use immunity in no way immunizes you from any prosecution from perjury if you were to lie in front of this Grand Jury; is that correct

Pryor v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

153 F. Supp. 2d 710 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 5, 2001

Recipients of Federal Funds To establish a prima facie case for racial discrimination under Title VI, Plaintiffs first must establish that Defendant is a recipient of federal funds. See Guardians Ass’n v. … Case law has clearly established, and the parties do not dispute, that Title VI only provides a remedy for intentional discrimination. See Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 293 , 105 S.Ct. 712 , 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985).

CURTIS v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2023

shown any reason why the same qualified immunity analysis that barred his damages claims against the other Defendants should not apply to bar his damages claims against” them. … immunity.