Case law

Yocum v. United States

589 F. Supp. 706 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 1984

Sovereign immunity bars this suit unless plaintiff can establish that the Congressional waiver provided by the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a) is applicable. Lehman v. … The Supreme Court there held that the Tucker Act granted jurisdiction where statutes and regulations clearly established fiduciary obligations of the Government in the management and operation of Indian lands and resources

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.”).

Maid-Rite Steak Co., Inc. v. United States

643 F. Supp. 1162 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1986

The request was denied on the ground that the pass-through election had not been made before the deadline established by Treas.Reg. § 1.48-4(f)(2). … The situation in Bookwalter , therefore, is not clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Lewis v. GENESIS HEALTHCARE CORP.

826 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2011

That Lewis performed her job for nearly twenty years sufficiently establishes that she was qualified for the job. Therefore, Lewis has established a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADEA. … Garden Spring Center also contends that Lewis cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA because she is not qualified to perform the essential functions of the job.

Simoncelli v. Weinberger

418 F. Supp. 87 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1976

It was clearly held in Salfi that 42 U.S.C. § 405 (h) precludes federal question jurisdiction in an action challenging the denial of claimed benefits. See Mathews v. … IV, 1974), amending 42 U.S.C. § 1395u(a) (1970), establishes Blue Shield as the duly authorized agent of the Secretary in this geographical location. See 20 CFR § 405.670 (1975). 2 . See 20 CFR § 405.820 (1972). 3 .

Nesbitt v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

415 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2005

Application This Court finds that Gililland is clearly qualified under Rule 702 to testify as to the effect of warnings based upon human factors principles. … establishes his knowledge in the area of how consumers respond to warnings.

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.

Holt Cargo Systems, Inc. v. Delaware River Port Authority

20 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1998

This factor weighs slightly in favor of Eleventh Amendment Immunity. D. … Balancing Step one of the balancing weighs heavily against Eleventh Amendment immunity; steps two and three weigh slightly in favor of Eleventh Amendment Immunity.

Culp v. Devlin

437 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 1977

Clearly, the City cannot be made a party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , since the City is not a “person” within the meaning of that statute. … Respondeat superi- or clearly cannot be applied to Rizzo and O’Neill, since they are not the employers of the police officers involved in the incident. See Goode v.

Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, International Union of Operating Engineers

469 F. Supp. 329 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1978

By the record in this case on the liability phase it is clear that the plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified, experienced and clearly able to conduct this aspect of the litigation. … Because of the complete inapplicability here of considerations of federal-state comity, absolute municipal immunity, and immunity of governmental supervisory personnel, the above-listed cases purporting (or seemingly purporting

Smith v. Snyder

381 F. Supp. 1083 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1974

Congress clearly left primary responsibility for enforcement of these rights within the Civil Service Commission. … The work record of the plaintiff was reviewed, and the reasons for the termination were clearly and definitely indicated.

HARRAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2026

“The fee schedule established by Community Legal Services, Inc. … Amendment sovereign immunity and federal immunity jurisprudence such as qualified immunity.

TOPPIN v. WILLIAMS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2022

Nevertheless, a sheriff may qualify for quasi-judicial immunity when “charged with the duty of carrying out facially valid court orders[.]” Addlespurger v. Corbett, 461 F. … claims, the threshold to establish emotional distress is low, citing to In re Odom.

Cain v. Hyatt

734 F. Supp. 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1990

See generally Note, AIDS: Does It Qualify as a “Handicap” Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?, 61 Notre Dame L.Rev. 572, 585 (1986). … First, although it is at least plausible to contend that the former, symptomatic dimension of Cain’s handicap would become job related, the latter, asymptomatic one clearly is non-job related.

Pao v. Holy Redeemer Hospital

547 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1982

This case falls quite clearly within the line of cases beginning with Sibley Memorial Hospital v. Wilson, 488 F.2d 1338 (D.C.Cir.1970). There, the D.C. … However, I find that the allegations in the amended complaint sufficiently qualify Mr. Gallagher, a member of the Hospital’s Board of Directors, as an agent of the Hospital. 6 .

Nath v. General Electric Co.

438 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1977

These factors are clearly defined and job-related. … In sum, plaintiff here has established his prima facie case.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Sterner

700 F. Supp. 252 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1988

There are three established doctrines of abstention. 1 We find *254 that Pullman and Younger abstention obviously do not apply. … Clearly, if we were to maintain jurisdiction in the declaratory action, we would confront the identical issue.

Hoffman v. Califano

450 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 1978

This other relevant evidence consisted, in part, of plaintiff’s testimony as to the nature and severity of the symptoms, which the examiner clearly credited. … Plaintiff clearly failed to qualify for this because a “B” reader had serially read all the x-rays from 1972 to 1976 and had not found the requisite kind or severity of disease. See n. 2 supra.

Booth v. Pence

354 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2005

DOC defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Because Booth fails to show that defendants' conduct violated a constitutional right, defendants are indeed entitled to qualified immunity under the first prong of the two-part inquiry set out by Saucier v.

ProtoComm Corp. v. Novell Advanced Services, Inc.

171 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2001

Defendants contend that while Pakter is a qualified accountant, he is not qualified to render opinions regarding fraudulent conveyances or wrongful liquidation. Pak-ter’s wide experience stands on its own. … Pakter clearly has experience beyond the field of accounting.