Case law

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.

Wragg v. Comcast Metrophone

18 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 1998

Comcast has a practice of interviewing both qualified applicants and those not yet qualified. … Com-cast interviews the not yet qualified to let them know what steps they need to take to become qualified for such a promotion.

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.

WRIGHT v. NORTHAMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2020

The defendants further argue that Last and Austin are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 15–16. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. v. Sebelius

917 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2013

The Establishment Clause The “central purpose of the Establishment Clause [is] the purpose of ensuring governmental neutrality in matters of religion.” Gillette v. … Specifically, an organization qualifies for an exemption if its purpose is the inculcation of religious values, it primarily employs and serves persons who share the organization’s religious beliefs and it qualifies as a

WALTON v. MCCARTHY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2025

With regard to assertions of qualified immunity, because it is an affirmative defense, “qual- ified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” … Although he lays out the requirements for qualified immunity (in service of the non-intervention theory), including showing that the right in question was not “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct,”

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.

Mark v. Borough of Hatboro

856 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1994

Each declined to establish a general rule. … Mark has clearly failed to establish that the Company is a state actor under the symbiotic relationship test. First, the Company is not a lessee of the Borough.

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.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

210 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2002

Although the language of that statute, which implements the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause of Article IV, § 1, refers only to state court judgments, “there ‘is a clearly established rule that state courts must … Turning to the remaining elements of the collateral estoppel inquiry, Amtrak clearly meets the requirements.

CAPPEL v. ASTON TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2023

She believes qualified immunity does not apply because she had a clearly established right to not be “abandon[ed] . . . in a dangerous situation, provided that” Mr. Marshall and Mr. Kisela knew of the risk presented. … Moore, 73 F.4th 367, 372, 374 (5th Cir. 2023) (holding “the right to be free from state-created danger is not clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, and stating “[w]e are particularly hesitant to expand

Johnson v. Resources for Human Development, Inc.

843 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 1994

subjected to harassment and humiliation at the hands of less qualified and less experienced whites including the defendants. … Pennsylvania law on wrongful discharge is well and firmly established.

Bernhard v. Brown & Brown of Lehigh Valley, Inc.

720 F. Supp. 2d 694 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2010

The ADA clearly provides that a qualified individual is one who can perform the essential functions of employment “with or without” reasonable accommodation. … FMLA Retaliation 10 To establish retaliation under the FMLA, Mr.

Morton v. National Dairy Products Corp.

287 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1968

In 1963 the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Penn Fruit did not qualify as a “subdealer”. … Such a pricing option is beyond the broad immunities permitted by Parker v. Brown.

Johnson v. City of Reading

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2023

In a motion to dismiss, “a defendant must show that the conduct triggering absolute immunity ‘clearly appear[s] on the face of the complaint.’” Fogle v. … The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that District Attorneys and Assistant District Attorneys qualify as a high official for purposes of immunity. See, e.g., Durham v.

Banks v. Travelers Insurance

60 F.R.D. 158 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 1973

Clearly these plaintiffs do not have a “common and undivided interest” but rather separate interests and rights derived from their separate subscriptions to the insurance policy. … It should be noted that all of these elements must be proven to establish liability; damages is a separate question. Because the proof must be so individualized, plaintiffs have not met the requirements of Rule 23(b).

Pabon v. McIntosh

546 F. Supp. 1328 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1982

Rehabilitation and vocational training of inmates is clearly a legitimate goal of prison officials. … Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College, 669 F.2d 142 (3d Cir.), rehearing denied, 675 F.2d 72 (3d Cir. 1982), or the qualified immunity to damages of these state executive officials. See, Procunier v.

Weidman v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

338 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2004

This Court has established that Defendant, when requesting credit reports on behalf of a contracting lender, acts as an agent of that lender. … Acting as an agent of these lenders, Defendant, by law, is sheltered by their permissible purposes, and need not establish an independent purpose.

Commonwealth of Pa. Ex Rel. Rafferty v. Phila. Psych. Ctr.

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.

GLADDEN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2022

Gladden concedes some claims are barred by qualified immunity. … because they are entitled to qualified immunity.