Case law

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 Hall Building Corp. v. Profexray Division of Litton Industries, Inc.

387 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 1974

In the instant case, because of their de facto control of the plaintiff’s litigation, Potomac and General Accident clearly have the chance to affect the outcome of this case. … In such case, Potomac and General Accident would not qualify as real parties in interest under the established test of Rule 17(a).

United States Ex Rel. Flores v. Cuyler

511 F. Supp. 386 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1981

Defendants further argue that they acted in good faith and therefore are entitled to immunity even if a constitutional violation occurred. … A compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot

Wisneski v. Nationwide Collections, Inc.

227 F.R.D. 259 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2004

Defendant does not dispute either that Plaintiffs attorneys are qualified, or that Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class. … Under this analysis, Defendants balance sheet clearly indicates that they have net worth in the form of common stock and equity, as well as whatever good will Defendant has established as a company. III.

Jones/Seymour v. LeFebvre

781 F. Supp. 355 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1991

Also, plaintiff clearly claims that defendant violated an administrative directive regarding inmate consent to filming. … This language clearly states that, despite the mandatory language used above, the directive is not intended to create any rights.

LAWSON v. SCI PHOENIX'S GINA CLARK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 2023

as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Because Lawson has not pled an Eighth Amendment violation, Sipple and Keys are entitled to qualified immunity on this basis alone.

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.

FRAZIER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2025

Frazier distinguishes Williams by arguing it is a qualified immunity case and the Officers here do not assert qualified immunity. We disagree with the attempt to distinguish Williams. First, Kopec—the case Mr. … And we note the Officers here raise qualified immunity as a defense to the second amended Complaint. ECF 30 at 9.

DERRICK v. GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2019

State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … that right was clearly established at the time of the injury.”

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 .

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.

PICKEL v. LANCASTER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY

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

Qualified Immunity Even if this Court could assume that Mr. and Mrs. … In affirming the District Court’s decision to grant the individual OCY employees qualified immunity, the Court noted: When assessing whether a right is clearly established, the inquiry

Maryland Dredging & Contracting Co. v. Coplay Cement Mfg. Co.

265 F. 842 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 1920

contract is made to soil or furnish certain goods identified by reference to independent circumstances, such as an entire lot deposited in a certain warehouse, or all that may be manufactured by the vendor in a certain establishment … The contract clearly falls within the class where the quantity, although approximately stated, is to be determined *845 according to the plaintiff’s requirements for the construction of the dry dock, for it is agreed that

HORSCH v. CANTYMAGLI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2024

By contrast, “[i]n their executive or administrative capacity, probation and parole officers are entitled only to a qualified, good faith immunity.” Id. (citing Harper v. … Horsch fails to allege facts to show that he is a qualified individual with a disability.

United States v. Johns-Manville Corporation

231 F. Supp. 690 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1964

The Government has clearly not sustained its burden of proof on this element of the crime charged in Count Two. … Tidewater Oil Company, 327 F.2d 459 , 474-475 and 478, where language used at 474-475 was qualified on rehearing (9th Cir. 1964).

Harold v. Barnhart

450 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2006

to waive immunity, they would be fired and disqualified from future public employment. … Thus, when the employees in Gardner, Uniformed Sanitation Men, and Lefkowitz refused to waive immunity, they were duly fired.

Lieberman v. Corporacion Experienca Unica, S.A.

226 F. Supp. 3d 451 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2016

establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … Defendants also argue that when the Contract is read in its entirety, 16 the deductions at issue are clearly permitted.

Gilmour v. Strescon Industries, Inc.

66 F.R.D. 146 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1975

The report fails to qualify for admission under the “recorded recollection” exception. … McManus “lied”, clearly committing perjury, and thereby entitling the plaintiff to relief under Rule 60(b)(3) F.R.Civ.P.

Reinert v. Larkin

211 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2002

The state court decision was thus not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Therefore, habeas relief is not merited on this claim. … The state court decision was neither contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, any clearly established federal law. Therefore, habeas relief is not merited on this claim.

Brown v. Lyons

977 F. Supp. 2d 475 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2013

In addition to the three strikes rule, the PLRA established “‘prescreening’ provisions that require a court to dismiss an action or appeal sua sponte if,” at any time, the court determines that “the action is ‘frivolous’ … Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (9th Cir.2007), that, “once a prisoner satisfies the exception to the three-strikes rule and otherwise qualifies for IFP status, the district court must docket the entire complaint and resolve