Case law

McGrenaghan v. St. Denis School

979 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1997

In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she was qualified for the job; and (3) she has … To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII, the plaintiff must prove: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; and (3) she was denied the position; and

MCINTYRE v. LICIARDELLO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2020

My immunity determination turns on whether those rights were “clearly established.” … As bad, counsel urges that because— according to the Officers—their actions did not violate “a clearly established law,” they are protected by qualified immunity. (Id. at 21.)

In Re Diet Drugs

236 F. Supp. 2d 445 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2002

The Settlement Agreement establishes specific criteria for conducting an echocardiogram. … First, the moving parties have clearly established that the Hariton and Napoli firms, through the attestations of Dr. Crouse and Dr. Mueller, have submitted numerous claims that are medically unreasonable.

United States v. Williams

533 F. Supp. 448 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1982

In fact, the record clearly indicates that his possession of the weapon was unlawful. Black’s Law Dictionary defines contraband as “any property which is unlawful to produce or possess.” … Unless Williams qualifies for an exception to the state firearms act, the return of his weapon would involve the federal government in the aid of a crime.

HERNANDEZ v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2025

App’x 83, 85 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (allegation that court employee defendants failed to provide trial transcripts, depriving plaintiff of documents necessary to establish his innocence at retrial and direct appeal … Hernandez states that he is a qualified individual with a disability because of a “brain injury,” autism, and a “language processing disorder.” (Compl. at 3.)

Rankin v. City of Philadelphia

963 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1997

Everything that *472 Rankin has alleged could be consistent with such a relationship, and he has not alleged any fact that would clearly negate an agency relationship. … Therefore, because the City is immune from punitive damages under City of Newport , Gordon and Coleman are also immune from punitive damages under § 1983 in their official capacities.

Speziale v. Bethlehem Area School District

266 F. Supp. 2d 366 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2003

The FMLA requires an employer to grant 12 weeks of leave to qualifying employees. 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (a)(1). … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under § 504, an employee must demonstrate: (1) that she or he has a disability; (2) that she or he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with

Strick Corp. v. Thai Teak Products Company, Ltd.

493 F. Supp. 1210 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1980

An affidavit should be required clearly setting forth the factual basis for the conclusion that the garnishment defendants are alter egos of the judgment debtors. … Rule 3142(a) provides: “The defenses of immunity or exemption of property from attachment or a question of jurisdiction over the garnishee may be raised by preliminary objections.” 3 .

Spodek v. United States

26 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1998

. § 409 (a), which waives sovereign immunity for actions involving the USPS. … Lader, 56 F.3d 234, 241 (D.C.Cir.1995) (holding that the precisely drawn CDA preempts more general grants of jurisdiction, and provides for uniquely qualified fora for the resolution of certain contractual disputes, unless

WHITE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2024

Unlike individual defendants, a municipality is not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for its policies, practices and customs constituting constitutional violations even … For the same reasons discussed above, the requirement that a constitutional right be clearly established is not relevant to liability under Monell.

Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co.

170 F.R.D. 127 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1997

First, our Court, which recognized a qualified federal common law psychotherapist-patient privilege prior to Jaffee, see Mines v. City of Philadelphia, 158 F.R.D. 337 (E.D.Pa.1994); Siegfried v. … Plaintiff must establish as the first element of her prima facie case of unlawful discrimination that she belongs to a protected category under the ADA. Olson v.

United States v. Panetta

436 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1977

A case which clearly seems to have been contemplated by the quoted comment is United States v. Cabral, 475 F.2d 715 (1st Cir. 1973). … I refused the request for immunity. Generally, in the absence of a request by the government, which was not made in this case, courts lack authority to grant immunity to a witness. Thompson v.

Benger Laboratories, Limited v. RK Laros Company

209 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 1962

It has already been held that the proof falls short of establishing that fact. … This provision clearly forbids the granting of sublicenses without such consent, and Armour and the plaintiff have so construed and acted upon it.

White v. Stroh Brewery Co.

15 F. Supp. 2d 734 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1998

Applying the foregoing principles to this case, we find that plaintiff was clearly qualified for the general laborer position at the defendant brewery given that he had held that job since 1978. … We also find that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the third element necessary to establish a prima facie case, i.e., that he was terminated became he was disabled.

Last v. Elwyn, Inc.

935 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1996

In Juvelis , the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed the question of whether an incompetent adult had established domicile in Pennsylvania for purposes of qualifying for benefits administered by … Finally, his parents are clearly acting in good faith and in Niki’s best interest in asserting that Melmark is Niki’s home.

Willisch v. Nationwide Insurance Co. of America

852 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2012

Livernois, an electrical engineer, opines that he cannot determine what devices qualify because each one activates at a different time, making it impossible to establish that it is activated at the precise moment the ignition … Judgment will be entered against a party who fails to sufficiently establish any element essential to that party's case and who bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v.

Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Pierce

606 F. Supp. 310 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1985

This analysis, in my view, does not cut deeply enough to justify the complete excision of a protection so clearly embedded in § 504. Recently, in Smith v. … Defendants' contention that plaintiffs have not established that they are "otherwise qualified” for HUD’s programs and activities is thus premature.

Murphy v. Radnor Township

904 F. Supp. 2d 498 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2012

) who were actually qualified for the position. … was so clearly outlandish that it cannot possibly have been the Township’s true reason.

United States v. Stepler

152 F. Supp. 99 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1957

And since the ministerial exemption is a matter of legislative grace, the selective service registrant bears the burden of clearly establishing a right to the exemption.” … Further, the record clearly indicates that there was nothing in the F.B.I. file which was in the slightest degree derogatory to the defendant.

Murray v. Ashcroft

285 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2003

Under the second route, entitled the “hypothetical federal felony route,” a state drug conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony, regardless of whether it is a state law felony or misdemeanor, if it would qualify as a … This statement, to which the parties stipulated at trial, clearly establishes a trafficking element. 3 2.