Case law

Jean v. CITY OF PHILA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 2022

The age qualifier that Plaintiff attempts to omit from section 5551(7) is essential to what constitutes an “offense” under that section. … Plaintiff’s suggested interpretation runs clearly contrary to legislative intent.

R. L. Polk & Co. v. Musser

105 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1952

If the rest of the evidence clearly negatives the inference of any substantial amount of copying throughout the book, the inclusion of a few trap listings, standing alone, will not, of itself, compel a finding of infringement … (C) Qualified — Plaintiff’s 3rd request is affirmed except for the last clause beginning “which infringes”.

Whetman v. Ikon

86 F. Supp. 2d 481 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2000

conceded at the district court level that they were fiduciaries as a general matter but argued that, as to investment decisions, they could not be held hable for a breach of fiduciary duty because their lack of discretion immunized … There is no suggestion that the plans are not qualified under ERISA. . These plans were filed of record while the case was in the District of Utah. .

Jones v. Bergland

440 F. Supp. 485 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1977

Each cooperative is a qualified cooperative organization with full authority to act pursuant to law. 3. Defendant is the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States. 4. … There is a clearly discernible speculative overtone to plaintiffs’ representation that producers shipping milk priced under Order 4 to handlers in part of New Jersey could suffer loss of their markets.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

529 F. Supp. 866 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1981

In order to establish good cause, it must be shown that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury, Essex Wire Co., supra; United States v. Lever Bros. … The designation “qualified witness” was established by PTO 184 (June 7, 1979) which followed our confidentiality hearing of May 9, 1979 (PTO 172 (May 16, 1979)).

PERRY v. 38TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2022

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its agencies in federal court when the state has not waived that immunity, Will v. Mich. … Perry did not file his Complaint until July 7, 2022, clearly, more than two years after the relevant events occurred. Thus, his ADA claims related to his criminal proceedings are time-barred.

Onley v. Simms

476 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1979

Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077, 1081 (3d Cir. 1976) (“to establish a constitutional violation, the indifference must be deliberate and the actions intentional”); Howell v. … immunity of executive officers for acts performed in the course of official conduct”).

Mathis v. DiGiacinto

430 F. Supp. 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1977

This Court cannot resolve those factual disputes based on the record established to date. … It is, therefore, well established that solitary confinement is not per se cruel and unusual. Newsome v. Sielaff, 375 F.Supp. 1189 (E.D.Pa.1974).

Hynson v. City of Chester

684 F. Supp. 1294 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1988

Judge Posner reasons that behind Aldinger lies a particular policy of immunizing municipal entities from liability; a policy not applicable to private parties. … I will follow the clearly established trend of case law in this circuit and in others.

Romanyuk v. Lynch

151 F. Supp. 3d 559 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2015

The ensuing investigation, however; did not" establish any basis for rescission and the investigation closed. Id. at 163 . … Section 1153(d) clearly limits spousal beneficiaries of diversity immigrant visas to those “accompanying or following to join” a principal alien. Since Ms.

McGrath v. Johnson

155 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 2001

Commonwealth of Pa., 224 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir.2000) (citing Pa.Stat.Ann., tit. 71, § 61), and the Commonwealth is not deemed a “person” under section 1983 and therefore is immune from suit. … The first occurred on March 28, 1996, which was clearly before July 17, 1996 when the complaint was filed.

American Hearing Aid Associates, Inc. v. GN Resound North America

309 F. Supp. 2d 694 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2004

AHAA and GN clearly did not agree to an exclusive contact where GN could sell products to AHAA Associates only through the AHAA channel. … AHAA’s claim fails because it has not established that the customer lists at issue qualified as trade secrets.

Iyer v. Everson

382 F. Supp. 2d 749 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2005

Iyer fails to establish the second element of a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex, religion, national origin, or color because he fails to show that he was qualified for the attorney position … The minutes do not clearly state what kind of complaints Iyer made.

Blackwell v. GMAC (In Re Blackwell)

162 B.R. 117 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1993

they are clearly erroneous. … Inasmuch as appellant must satisfy all four of the above-referenced elements to qualify for a stay under Rule 8005, there is obviously no need to address the issue of whether he will be able to make out a sufficient showing

Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon, Inc.

36 F. Supp. 3d 527 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2014

First, the FTC posits that Actavis clearly directs that the merits or perceived merits of the underlying patent dispute are irrelevant to the antitrust analysis. … As noted above, the scope-of-the-patent cases were quite uniform in recognizing an exception to immunity for fraudulently-obtained patents.

Jesse Polansky M.D. v. Exec. Health Res., Inc.

300 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2018

If EHR chose to have attorneys involved in the selection, that does not necessarily immunize all of the work and communications that may have been taken by the Defendant. … A work product privilege is a qualified privilege, which is subject to discretionary application by the Court.

Hinton v. Devine

633 F. Supp. 1023 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1986

Moreover, the kind of threatened injury also sufficient to establish standing still exists here. … Although immune from prosecution and civil suit for such activities, he or she would not be immune from some anonymous investigator’s belief or opinion, that such an activity indicates “disloyalty”.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. DeBruicker

838 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1993

If physical fact is the controlling factor, clearly Lauren DeBruicker’s presence is more often in California than in Pennsylvania. … Do these "college students” qualify as residents or not? If not, what factors differentiate them from Lauren DeBruicker?

Agre v. Wolf

284 F. Supp. 3d 591 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2018

This procedural-substantive distinction establishes that where a new regulation is clearly not procedural, the Court may find it ultra vires under the Elections Clause. … inconsistent with established law.

GORRIO v. TERRA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2025

Bazel was qualified and he feared the procedure would result in infection. Id. Officer Keil purportedly responded “you are getting the glass out of you like it or not,” while Dr. … its immunity; (2) Congress specifically abrogates the states’ immunity; or (3) the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against an individual.”