Case law

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.

MORENCY v. CITY OF ALLENTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2020

“In the familiar qualified immunity analysis, the court asks ‘(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable … immunity analysis—there is no support for the conclusion that a seven-minute investigative stop under the circumstances of this case constitutes a violation of a “clearly established” Fourth Amendment right of which a

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.

Leger v. Sailer

321 F. Supp. 250 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1970

. § 432(2). 2 This program provides aid for the needy who do not qualify for grants under the categorical assistance provisions. … Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970), clearly recognized the significance of such aid when it said: “Public assistance is * * * not mere charity, but a means to ‘promote the general Welfare and secure

Fedor v. Freightliner, Inc.

193 F. Supp. 2d 820 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2002

The Court established a “gatekeep-ing role for the [trial] judge.” … Wilcox has extensive experience and acclaim in the area of human factors, and any testimony he might give about the tendencies of human machine operators is clearly within his expertise.” Id. at 368 . In qualifying Dr.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

402 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1975

Guided by these principles, which define the application of the void for vagueness doctrine and show clearly that the doctrine does not immunize potential defendants from the risk that their conduct may subsequently be judged … Ill, IV, V, which clearly implies that Congress knew whereof it wrote when it enacted the statute.

United States v. Slaey

433 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2006

Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), could go forward because the agents did not have the benefit of qualified immunity. … Clearly, there was no basis in the affidavit of probable cause for such a wide sweep.

Bullock v. Children's Hosp. of Philadelphia

71 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1999

To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, a plaintiff must show that he or she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; and (3) was discharged under circumstances that … It is uncontested that Bullock is a member of a protected class, that she was qualified for the position she held and that she was subject to an adverse employment decision. 8 .

Moss v. Swann Oil, Inc.

423 F. Supp. 1280 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 1977

To come within the orbit of § 414, it is incumbent upon the plaintiffs to establish that Swann and Gypsum retained control of work to be performed by Fisher. … While he also lacked practical experience in the construction of oil storage tanks, he was clearly qualified to express an opinion in this case, and the weight of that opinion was for the jury. Dr.

Beck v. Wings Field, Inc.

35 F. Supp. 953 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1940

The evidence was directed to establish facts pertinent to these issues. … In fact, a verdict should not be set aside unless it is clearly and palpably unwarranted. Muskegon Nat. Bank v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., C.C., 19 F. 405 .

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.P.

254 F.R.D. 253 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2008

The excerpted memorandum clearly reveals the legal advice of Ms. Hankins. Further, Mr. … In response, SEPTA argues that Caremark has failed to establish that Ms. Brown was seeking legal advice from Ms.

Briggs v. Temple Univ.

339 F. Supp. 3d 466 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2018

Remittitur The remittitur is well established as a device employed when the trial judge finds that a decision of the jury is clearly unsupported or excessive. See Spence v. Bd. of Educ. of Christina Sch. … The above testimony clearly establishes that all of the decision-makers in Briggs' termination from Temple had knowledge of her complaints of age discrimination.

Fynes v. Weinberger

677 F. Supp. 315 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1985

A private right of action has been established under the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual shall, solely by reason of his handicap be excluded from participation in, be … the basis of his handicap.[ 8 ] “Once plaintiff establishes his prima fa-cie case, defendants have the burden of going forward and proving that plaintiff was not an otherwise qualified handicapped person, that is one who

Duke v. United States

305 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2004

Plaintiffs tort claims are barred by sovereign immunity. … According to the Cheves court, “Congress clearly intended to preclude district court jurisdiction over [DVA] decisions relating to benefits claims, including decisions of constitutional issues.”

DOE v. THE HILL SCHOOL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2023

The first two factors must be established first, as they are the “most critical.” Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2017). … It is also true that substance abuse does in some instances qualify as a disability under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12210.

Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

295 F. Supp. 2d 529 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2003

The *534 Middle District reached the merits only after first deciding that the PUC, despite its urging, was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. … -Pa., 271 F.3d at 503 (“The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was clearly a congressional exercise of its Commerce Clause power.”).

Specter v. Garrett

777 F. Supp. 1226 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 1991

The presumption of judicial review of federal agency action under the APA is well established. See Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 141 , 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1511 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). … An action falling within this exception, as the decision to clear and realign bases surely does, is immune from the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act dealing with hearings (5 U.S.C. 556) and final agency decisions

Carey ex rel. Carey v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

810 F. Supp. 164 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1992

Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, in order for Plaintiffs to sustain a cause of action in negligence against Defendant Fluoro, Plaintiffs must establish the following elements: 1. … Plaintiffs argue that Scarborough and Gardner are inapplicable to the present case since those cases involved adjoining landowners that were entitled to governmental immunity.

United States v. Pennsylvania

863 F. Supp. 217 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1994

General has reasonable cause to believe that any State ... is subjecting persons residing in or confined to an institution ... to egregious or flagrant conditions which deprive such persons of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The legislative history of CRIPA expresses clearly this concern.