Case law

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?

Wright v. Cuyler

517 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 1981

The program is described as an “opportunity” for “qualified” inmates, without any suggestion that pre-release is a preferred mode of treatment. … The Equal Protection Claim Wright’s equal protection claim is not clearly stated, but it appears that his contention is that he has been denied equal *643 protection of the laws in two ways.

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”.

Wagner v. General Electric Co.

760 F. Supp. 1146 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1991

Clearly, the Court contemplated that any change to the employment at-will doctrine was to come from the legislature. … Since defendant receives money from “the government” because of its contracts with the Navy and INS, “the money it received for its various government contracts removes the type of immunity that would normally be afforded

Barclay v. Amtrak

343 F. Supp. 2d 429 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2004

However, plaintiff alleges that he filed an intake questionnaire on February 12, 2001. 1 Whether an intake questionnaire qualifies as a “charge” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)’s filing requirement is an open question … The face of plaintiffs complaint clearly establishes that the last act of discrimina *434 tion for which plaintiff complains occurred on July 25, 2000. Plaintiff filed this action on April 24, 2003.

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.”

IDS Property Casualty Insurance v. Schonewolf

111 F. Supp. 3d 618 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 2015

“[JJudgment will not be granted ‘unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Jablonski v. Pan Am. … It is troubling that actions which would usually be deemed criminal might qualify for coverage despite this exclusion.

Parry v. Jackson National Life Insurance

54 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1999

Prima Facie Case To establish the prima facie case, the plaintiff must show: 1) that he belongs to the protected class, 2) that he applied for and was qualified for the job, 3) that despite his qualifications he was rejected … Plaintiffs also assert that this familiarity made them more qualified than the young supervisors who were retained. Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they were qualified.

WILSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2023

Thus, while we tend to discuss prosecutorial immunity based on alleged acts, our ultimate analysis is whether a defendant has established absolute prosecutorial immunity from a given claim. … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

McCarty v. Marple Township Ambulance Corps

869 F. Supp. 2d 638 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2012

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … Downey, moreover, was clearly referring to McCarty and Carmen; Carmen was not African American. Downey did not use the term “boy” in the singular and was not strictly referring to McCarty.

Collura v. Ford

303 F.R.D. 57 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2014

Second, the Court cannot properly, and therefore will not, opine at this stage as to whether the Defendants have absolute or qualified immunity. … Similarly, under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

United States v. Welty

330 F. Supp. 699 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 1971

United States, 330 U.S. 160, 166 , 67 S.Ct. 645, 649 , 91 L.Ed. 818 (1947) wherein he noted: “ ‘This Court has rejected the doctrine that a prisoner whose guilt is established by a regular verdict, is to escape punishment … altogether because the court committed an er *702 ror in passing [the] sentence •X- * -X- “ ‘The Constitution does not require that sentencing [should] be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the

Goff v. Kutztown University

63 F. Supp. 3d 475 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2014

Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 694 (3d Cir.1996) (a party may raise the issue of Eleventh Amendment immunity at the earliest state of litigation). There are two types of Rule 12(b)(1) motions. … “It is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech.” Rankin v.

Agresta v. City of Philadelphia

801 F. Supp. 1464 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 1992

The City’s evidence, if believed by the jury, established that Samuel Agresta, Jr. had fired first at the police officers from his vehicle. … While the jury certainly could have reached a different result from the conflicting evidence, its decision in favor of the police officers clearly was not against the weight of the evidence.

Feinberg v. United States

628 F. Supp. 12 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1985

However, before we may even exercise this discretion, we must determine whether the plaintiffs qualify as “prevailing parties” as this term is defined in § 7430(c)(2): (A) In general. — The term “prevailing party” means any … In contrast, § 7430(c)(2)(A)(i) clearly states that the pertinent position is that which the government took “in the civil proceeding,” meaning the position that the government assumed once it was presented with. the fact

Kravitz v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of US

453 F. Supp. 381 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 1978

Therefore, on the uncontested facts established by the depositions, the Foundation is not a hospital defined by the policy. … Clearly that policy provided farther-reaching coverage than that with which we are now concerned.

Stoltzfus v. Ulrich

587 F. Supp. 1226 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1984

directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.” … Such claims are clearly controlled by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), which is directed against unlawful employment practices by private employers.

Moore v. Colautti

483 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1979

After Philpott , however, this statement of the law was clearly incorrect. … Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 1727, reports that: The IAR program was established to alleviate hardships on potential SSI recipients resulting from delay in determination of SSI eligibility.

UMAROV v. OUTLAW

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2024

To earn the protections of absolute immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, “a defendant must show that the conduct triggering absolute immunity ‘clearly appear[s] on the face of the complaint.’” Fogle v. … As previously noted, where the conduct triggering absolute immunity clearly appears on the face of the complaint, courts will grant motions to dismiss based on prosecutorial immunity.