Case law

Thomas Roberts & Co. v. Calmar SS Corporation

59 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1945

Where the cargo owner fails to establish actual good condition, Schnell v. … The stipulation thus did not add to the causes of injury from which the carrier could claim immunity. It could not relieve him from liability for want of diligence in the stowage or care of the cargo.”

United States v. Harder

168 F. Supp. 3d 732 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2016

Order No. 12,766 (“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Organizations Immunities Act... … Defendant’s suggestion that he could not have known that the EBRD qualified as a public international organization is thus untenable. San Filippo v.

KEEL III v. PHILADELPHIA PA 19106 POLICE DEPARTMENTS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2021

Keel continues to have difficulty clearly articulating his claims to the Court. … Keel is reminded that if he hopes to file an Amended Complaint, it must clearly state the name of each defendant in the caption and must clearly state what each defendant did or did not do to cause him harm. Mr.

Bowersfield v. Suzuki Motor Corp.

151 F. Supp. 2d 625 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2001

Cantor’s report and hearing testimony and determine whether, under Daubert, he is qualified to express his stated opinions. Mr. … He is clearly qualified to offer opinions as to the alleged design defects of the 1992 Suzuki Samurai, its crashworthiness, the sufficiency of the warning label, and causation.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. O'NEILL

348 F. Supp. 1084 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1972

Siskin to classify individual bits of information which did not fall clearly within one of the coding sheet’s categories. … This point may be made more clearly if simple numbers are used. Suppose 800 took the test and 130 passed.

JEFFERIES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2026

While he asserts that the behavior of prison guards was not being policed, (Compl. at 7), that vague statement is not clearly asserted against Terra in particular. … § 2310 (establishing immunity for Commonwealth officials and employees); 42 Pa. Cons.

Garner v. Township of Wrightstown

819 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1993

The various defendants have raised both absolute and qualified immunity defenses. Comporting with the directive of Siegert v. … This is clearly not what was intended by Congress in the drafting of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .”

Pennsylvania ex rel. Rafferty v. Philadelphia Psychiatric Center

356 F. Supp. 500 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1973

However, although medical administrators must be given a very wide range of discretion, they are not immune from the mandates of the Due Process Clause. … She was fired in retaliation for engaging in protected speech and would clearly have wanted to avoid any infringement or chilling of her First Amendment rights.

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.

U.S. Claims, Inc. v. Flomenhaft

519 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2007

With regard to Stillwa-ter, the Court finds that Article 9 renders it immune from tortious interference liability absent any allegations of illegality or fraud. … for one does not necessarily confer immunity for the other.

Rashid v. Public Savings Ass'n

97 B.R. 187 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1989

C. § 1985(3), alleging that the defendants conspired to engage in conduct designed to deprive him of “the equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities *190 under the laws.” … All parties to this action are clearly private actors. Moreover, plaintiff has offered absolutely no evidence which remotely suggests that defendants were in any way related to or acting on behalf of, the state.

In Re ATI Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation

216 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2002

As an alternative to pleading facts that would constitute circumstantial evidence of recklessness or conscious behavior, a plaintiff may establish scienter by “alleging facts establishing a motive and an opportunity to commit … The PSLRA also effected a change in substantive law, establishing a “safe harbor” for “forward-looking statements.” See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(e).

BARONE v. GORDON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2024

Ct. 2014) (officer of the coroner, as an elected County official, qualified as a high public official); Osiris Enters. v. Borough of Whitehall, 877 A.2d 560, 567 (Pa. Commw. … Given the absolute nature of high public official immunity, I find that Defendant Gordon is immune from Plaintiff’s common law claim of wrongful discharge.

United States Ex Rel. Jones v. Rundle

358 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 10, 1973

To hold all state officials immune from suit would very largely frustrate the salutary purpose of this provision. We conclude that the defense of immunity should be applied sparingly in suits brought under § 1983.” … The limited immunity available to the defendants will not protect them in this case.

Elsesser v. Hospital of the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine

802 F. Supp. 1286 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1992

Such a claim for failure to provide funding clearly has a “connection with or reference to” a benefit plan. See Corcoran v. United Healthcare, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir.1992). (Plaintiffs’ claim that U.S. … Leonard Harman, P.C., satisfied criteria for participation as a qualified physician after passing vigorous screening criteria established by U.S.

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

National Union Electric Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

494 F. Supp. 1257 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 1980

NUE asserts that the process for establishing the computer base for the data at issue involved detailed “decision analysis”, i. e. the sentient selection by counsel from voluminous raw material of a limited amount of data … Acknowledging that the work product privilege is but a qualified evidentiary privilege, see United States v.

COTTLE v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2025

Stat. § 2310 (establishing immunity for Commonwealth officials and employees); 42 Pa. Cons. … “Under Pennsylvania law, even unauthorized acts may be within the scope of employment ‘if they are clearly incidental to the master’s business.’” Id. at 381 (quoting Shuman Estate v. Weber, 216 A.2d 169 (Pa. Super.

Larkin v. METHACTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

773 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2011

According to the Court, “[t]he word ‘substantial’ ... clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way with the performance of [a major life activity] from qualifying as disabilities.” … And “[u]nlike a plaintiff in an ADA discrimination case, a plaintiff in an ADA retaliation case need not establish that [she] is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’ ” Krouse v. Am.

TALLEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2023

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.