Case law

United States v. Sample

378 F. Supp. 44 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1974

Britchkow’s testimony clearly is not worthy of belief. Lena Lee is a member of the Parkside Tennis Club. … There can be no doubt that Nash is qualified *52 to testify as to the reliability of spectogram analysis.

Tate v. Werner

68 F.R.D. 513 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1975

Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, and regardless of the receipt of numerous letters through the machinery we had established in order to elicit comments, we issued a second order setting forth new time frames for … We have no doubts about the adequacy of representation of the plaintiff class in that suit, as many of the attorneys are well-known to this Court and are extremely well-qualified for the litigation.

United States v. Richlyn Laboratories, Inc.

817 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1993

Parts 210 and 211. (2) The Defendants select a person subject to the approval of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) who, by reason of training and experience, is qualified to make inspections of drug manufacturing facilities … Applying the preceding principles to the matter now before us, we find that the while the record herein clearly reflects the existence of a valid court order of which the respondent had knowledge, the November 5, 1992 order

SMALLS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2025

These claims are barred by absolute judicial immunity. … As the plaintiff, Smalls bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v.

EQUAL EMP. OPP. COM'N v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.

419 F. Supp. 1022 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1976

Clearly the Philadelphia Plan is color-conscious. … Accordingly, I decline CWA's invitation to abolish the "best qualified" standard for promotion established by its collective bargaining agreements with defendants. [35] The defendants argue that the intervenors, insofar as

United States v. Waldin

138 F. Supp. 791 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1956

over those whose intent is clearly manifested. … The court said that even though “the defendant had a ‘duty’ to assist taxpayers and prepare income tax returns under regulations or directive at the Collector’s office, does not establish conclusively the duty followed him

Brookins v. United States

722 F. Supp. 1214 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1989

Federal Tort Claims Act As a general matter, the Federal Tort Claims Act serves as a waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity. … The Area Management Broker Contract in Carmona provided, in part: It shall be the duty of the Contractor to obtain the services of qualified employees in all instances, and the Contractor shall be responsible for the actions

Williams v. Santiago

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2025

In the alternative, the City argues any Monell claim premised on the individual Defendant officers and detectives’ Brady obligation should be dismissed because such an obligation was not clearly established at the time … Further, the City’s argument that individual Defendants may be entitled to qualified immunity for any Monell claims premised on their Brady obligation does not preclude municipal liability because a municipality “can be

Albert Einstein Medical Center v. National Benefit Fund for Hospital & Health Care Employees

740 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1989

It is clear that the hospitals in the present case do not qualify as “participants” under the ERISA statutory definition. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (1982). Nor do they qualify as “beneficiaries”, in their own right. … In Metropolitan Life, the Supreme Court held that the legislative history of section 1132(a)(1)(B) makes clear that Congress clearly intended to make suits within the scope of this section exclusive federal questions for

Strauss v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHER. OF TEAMSTERS, ETC.

179 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1959

Some tests are well established. … To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action." 299 U.S. at page 112 , 57 S.Ct

Featherman v. DiGiacinto

617 F. Supp. 431 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1985

Plaintiff has the burden of establishing several elements in order to make out a valid due process claim. … In the case at bar, plaintiff has established through his complaint a protected liberty interest.

McKnight v. School District of Philadelphia

105 F. Supp. 2d 438 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2000

Title VII clearly states that its tolling date is the date of the alleged unlawful employment practice. Here, the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred on March 20,1998. … Upon the occurrence of a “qualifying event,” “the employer of an employee under a plan must notify the administrator ... within 30 days ... of the date of the qualifying event[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 1166 (a)(2).

Emmell v. Phoenixville Hosp. Co.

303 F. Supp. 3d 314 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2018

To establish a prima facie ADA discrimination case, a plaintiff must prove that she (1) is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) is a "qualified individual," and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because … As this argument relates to the plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim, it is clearly established law that a disability is not required for a successful claim.

Hodgson v. Penn Packing Co., Inc.

335 F. Supp. 1015 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1971

The first may be stated as follows: To qualify for an exemption under the Act, an employer must satisfy all of the requirements provided by the exemption. … Clearly the government is correct in contending that there is no bona fide non-overtime rate applicable to the cleanup work.

Ulloa v. City of Philadelphia

692 F. Supp. 481 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 1988

It would not qualify as “newly discovered evidence,” and could not be a basis for reopening Gerson Ulloa’s case. … No misconduct was established by clear and convincing evidence.

United States v. Calamaro

137 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1956

The evidence, read with the information, shows clearly of what the defendant was convicted. He is amply protected against another prosecution for the same offense. See United States v. … aiming to establish its terms.” .

Kromnick v. State Farm Insurance

112 F.R.D. 124 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1986

Although the burden is on plaintiffs to establish that the action qualifies for class action treatment, I find that plaintiffs have met their burden in this case. See Davis v. Romney, 490 F.2d 1360, 1366 (3d Cir.1974). … Clearly this question is common to the entire class.

United States v. Whitfield

89 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2000

This establishes a base offense level of 22, with a corresponding sentencing range of 41 to 51 months. B. … The defendant does not qualify for a departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 5K2.0 or 5K2.12 based on coercion or rehabilitation.

Gardner v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

8 F. Supp. 3d 677 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2014

MetLife’s August 16, 2010 termination letter clearly instructed Gardner to file an administrative appeal, and also clearly informed her that if she still disagreed with its determination after that administrative appeal, … Shallcross, was insufficient to establish a- diagnosis of dementia. MetLife chose to credit Dr.

Jones v. DeNotaris

80 F. Supp. 3d 588 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2015

As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated more-than 30 years ago, Congress’ decision to provide administrative and arbitration remedies for aggrieved blind vendors clearly evidences a policy judgment that the federal courts … Ramsey, 366 F.3d 1 , 9-23 (discussing waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity).