Case law

Hiester v. Fischer

113 F. Supp. 2d 742 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2000

H, p. 12, is qualified to know what police officers experience “on the street.” … “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than the abstract need or desire for it. [She] must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Thomas v. American Cystoscope Makers, Inc.

414 F. Supp. 255 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 1976

Tested against the legal standards on the quantum of evidence necessary to establish a jury question on the issue of causation, we think that there clearly was. … There clearly was no error.

In re Penn Central Transportation Co.

422 F. Supp. 67 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1976

Needless to state, no such immunity has been conferred. … might be able to establish that its assumption of these liabilities comes within the “other benefits” aspect of the valuation proceedings in the Special Court.

Bowman v. General Motors Corp.

427 F. Supp. 234 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 1977

Clearly, plaintiff requests Thibodaux abstention. Just as clearly plaintiff does not demonstrate the appropriateness of his claim. … Plaintiff chose the federal diversity forum at a time when state law was even more clearly set against his position than it is now.

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).

Lawrence v. United States

631 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1982

. § 1331 , the Court must find that the claims asserted therein are “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, or clearly foreclosed by the decisions of the Supreme Court so as to leave no room … The Court does not now decide whether an award of backpay would constitute monetary damages in this case that would be impermissible under principles of sovereign immunity. 17 .

United States v. Pough

96 F. Supp. 3d 495 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2015

The defendant reiterated his prior testimony that the detectives offered promises of immunity and witness protection in exchange for his statement. … Thus, the Court relies on Defendant’s own incriminating statement at a suppression hearing, which clearly established that he was involved as a get-away driver after a murder took place and that this conduct was in violation

TINGEY v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE PROBATION AND PAROLE BOARD

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2019

See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (“An arrest, of course, qualifies as a ‘seizure’ of a ‘person’ under [the Fourth Amendment].”). Thus, the “more specific provision” rule applies. See Moyer v. … App’x 169, 172–73 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[T]o the extent [plaintiff’s] substantive due process claim is predicated on damages resulting from an unconstitutional seizure, that claim is clearly foreclosed by Albright [v.

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

Collier Ex Rel. Collier v. William Penn School District

956 F. Supp. 1209 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1997

While these courts have employed slightly different tests of liability, several factors are clearly required to state a viable sexual harassment claim in this context. … . *1217 The individual defendants, as WPSD employees, are also immune from negligence claims. Id. at § 8545.

United States v. Fineman

434 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 1977

occasions and in various ways sought to prevent the F.B.I. and a Federal Grand Jury from learning of the foregoing events, by successfully urging Abrams to plead the Fifth Amendment before the Grand Jury, and then, after immunity … If a gambling enterprise qualifies, so should an enterprise which systematically collects bribes.

Alzheimer's Institute of America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals

952 F. Supp. 2d 740 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2013

AIA further argues that even if the May 4, 1992 letter itself did not clearly prove USF’s knowledge of its ownership rights in all of Mullan’s inventions, disclosed or undisclosed, there was other evidence that established … Thus, the statement did not qualify under Rule 801(d)(2)(c) or any other rule of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

United States v. Siegner

498 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 1980

Lewin is a defendant in this case, and Spiewak is an immunized potential government witness. … Gordon also is an immunized potential government witness.

McCann v. Delaware River Port Authority

548 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1982

Crouch-Walker Corp., 552 F.2d 1277, 1282 (7th Cir. 1977) (prima facie ease established if plaintiff is (1) member of racial minority (2) was qualified for his job (3) was satisfying its normal requirements (4) was discharged … ). *1214 In this circuit, it appears that plaintiff’s prima facie case will be met if he establishes that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) that he was qualified for the job he was performing, (3) that he was satisfying

Oden v. SEPTA

137 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2015

Oden must establish a prim a facie case of disability discrimination by demonstrating: “(1) [s]he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of … coupled with timing to establish a causal link.”

Buskirk v. Apollo Metals

116 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2000

To create a prima facie ease under the ADA, a plaintiff must “establish that he or she (1) has a disability (2) is a qualified individual and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of that disability.” … Finally, the record clearly shows that as of November 1996, Buskirk’s doctors determined he would not be able to return to his original box maker position.

Turner v. National Football League

301 F.R.D. 191 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2014

The BAP Administrator, which will be appointed by the Court, will establish the network of medical providers. Monetary Awards 14. What diagnose qualify for monetary awards? … Qualifying Diagnoses must be made by approved qualified specialists.

Husbands v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

395 F. Supp. 1107 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1975

We believe instead that the Ninth Circuit in Johnson and Soria clearly held Keyes to equate intent with purpose or motivation. … First of all, the court said, while Keyes clearly required a showing of segregative intent to establish a prima facie case in a school segregation action, the court felt no such requirement applied to an action involving

United States v. Wilcox

357 F. Supp. 514 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1973

Here, the two searches of 2854 West Oakdale Street were clearly directed at defendant, within the meaning of Jones. … Here, the absence of exigent or exceptional circumstances is most clearly demonstrated by the conduct of the agents themselves.

Seaman v. Colvin

145 F. Supp. 3d 421 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2015

In particular, the ALJ found that neither C.S. nor J.S. was a qualified child for purposes of child’s survivor benefits under § 416(e) of the Act. … To construe the relevant state provision in this case the way plaintiff requests would clearly be inconsistent with that primary concern and would appear contrary to the “well established” principle observed in the Commission