Case law

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.

Hicks v. Arthur

878 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1995

The plaintiff would clearly be able to prove that race motivated her termination if Mr. Poole were made available for deposition. Id. 7 (emphasis added). … None of these assertions serves to establish a prima facie case of race or sex discrimination — indeed, they do exactly the opposite.

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.

School District v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board

877 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1995

This case arises out of the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (PMMB) Order A-863, which establishes minimum milk prices in PMMB Area # 1. … ELEVENTH AMENDMENT Defendants assert that “[i]t is clearly established law that ‘in the absence of consent, a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh

K.S.S. v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners

871 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2012

The Supreme Court has recognized that interests in bodily integrity and freedom from bodily harm qualify as protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause. … To the extent a claim solely addresses a particular County Defendant, the Court will clearly identify the specific County Defendant relevant to the discussion. .

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.

Matherly v. Lamb

414 F. Supp. 364 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 1976

If these subparagraphs were intended to state separate claims for relief, however, they clearly run afoul of the rudimentary pleading rules of *371 Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). … Plaintiffs couch their claim in terms of a deprivation of the “privileges and immunities granted to [them] under the 14th Amendment.”

United States v. Stelweck

108 B.R. 488 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1989

The clearly erroneous standard, however, does not apply to the Bankruptcy Court’s conclusions of law which I must review de novo. … Sufficient evidence was not presented to establish — by testimony of either the doctors or recipients — that the recipients did not suffer from a qualifying ailment or condition and therefore as a result of the supplier’s

Alessi Ex Rel. Alessi v. Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare

710 F. Supp. 127 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1989

facts consistent with said reports, and would establish the authenticity of such reports. 19. … Eleventh Amendment Immunity Before reaching the substantive issues presented in this case, I will address the defendants’ claim of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

SINANAN v. CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES DIVISION, COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON, GOVERNMENT AGENCY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2024

Absolute immunity can “protect the attorney from liability flowing from prosecutorial actions, as long as the challenged acts were not those that a reasonable person would recognize as being clearly outside his jurisdiction … As Ondilla’s actions were clearly prosecutorial and taken in a case where he had jurisdiction to act, he is entitled to absolute immunity.

Kosak v. Devine

439 F. Supp. 2d 410 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2006

Statutory Provisions at Issue Section 203(a)(4) of the INA establishes a fourth-level immigrant visa preference for “qualified immigrants who are the brothers and sisters of citizens of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. §'1153 … The BIA answered no, stating “to qualify as siblings under section 203(a)(5) of the Act, a petitioner must establish both that he and the beneficiary once qualified as children of a common parent and that the parental relationship

Mosley v. Yaletsko

275 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2003

The plaintiff must also establish that it was the acts of the defendant which caused the constitutional deprivation. See: Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-371 , 96 S.Ct. 598, 604 , 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976); Duchesne v. … In light of our findings, we see no need to address the defendant's claim that she is entitled to qualified immunity from this suit.

Emrick v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

470 F. Supp. 772 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 1979

prompted this measure, plaintiffs resorted, unsuccessfully, to the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the appropriate review committee established … Finally, in Count IV plaintiffs accuse defendants of knowingly and intentionally conspiring to deprive plaintiffs of their “privileges and immunities and the equal protection of law and/or the parties’ contractual rights”

Mikkilineni v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

485 F. Supp. 1292 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1980

Early in 1978, plaintiff, an “Asian-American from the Indian sub-continent”, apparently qualified as a minority contractor. … Clearly, plaintiff knew of the administrative proceeding when he filed the amended complaint.

Dech v. Rouselle Corp.

512 F. Supp. 1024 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 1981

Clearly, the circumstances under which Home supposedly executed this “contract” do not meet the requirements of the Pennsylvania Act. … Voluntary arrogation of potential liability anticipated by Section 481(b) will not be inferred absent evidence required by the statute of an intent to relinquish this immunity.

Karas v. Jackson

582 F. Supp. 43 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1983

Jackson’s affidavit clearly establishes the contrary. The physicians and attendants did not personally confer a benefit on Dr. … Pennsylvania Hospital, 417 Pa. 486 , 208 A.2d 193 (1965), which eliminated the immunity from tort liability previously recognized in favor of public hospitals.

Kieffer v. CPR Restoration & Cleaning Service, LLC

200 F. Supp. 3d 520 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2016

Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that Kieffer has failed to establish that he was a “qualified individual” under the ADA and there is no record evidence to support his remaining claims. … that he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’ ” Krouse v.

Fidelity Leasing Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

494 F. Supp. 786 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1980

As noted above, exculpatory clauses are strictly construed against the party asserting the immunity. … In addition, the burden to establish immunity is on the party asserting it and the defendant here has *790 offered no reason or precedent for construing the clause to cover gross negligence. 4 I find therefore that the exculpatory

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.

Mraz v. County of Lehigh

862 F. Supp. 1344 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1994

Once the moving party has met the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the non-moving party must establish the existence of each element of its case. J.F. Feeser, Inc. v. … Defendants also request summary judgment on the ground that they are immune from suit. We -will not decide this argument because summary judgment on this claim is granted on substantive grounds. 2 .