Case law

Lucas v. " BRINKNES" SCHIFFAHRTS GES.

379 F. Supp. 759 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 1974

Co., 321 U.S. 96 , 64 S.Ct. 455 , 88 L.Ed. 561 (1944), established the warranty of seaworthiness to be absolute. … The Act clearly provides for such a suit regardless of the concurrent negligence by the stevedore.

Thomas v. Beard

388 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2005

XV — Failure to “life-qualify” the jury Thomas contends trial counsel was deficient for failing to “life-qualify” the jury during voir dire. … Clearly, the result defendant seeks was not ‘dictated’ by existing precedent.”). Under the principles of Teague , therefore, Thomas was not entitled to a life-qualified jury.

In re Erlich

297 F. 327 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1924

There can be uo doubt that such debts are a charge on those assets at that time, and, if they are not paid, the assets clearly remain subject to that charge. … The distinction is (clearly stated in Loveland on Bankruptcy (3d Ed.) 772.

Farmer v. Weinberger

368 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1973

It is the plaintiff’s contention that the Secretary has failed to meet his burden, going forward with evidence to establish the claimant’s ability to engage in such work. … Findings of the Hearing Examiner are clearly based upon sufficient evidence, as defined in Richardson v. Perales, supra, and Ginsburg v. Richardson, supra.

In Re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation

434 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2006

There was clearly no usurpation of power so as to void a judgment under Rule 60(b)(4). See Marshall, 575 F.2d at 422. … That doctrine applies only to known facts that existed at the time the contract was executed and it is well established that "erroneous predictions of future events do not qualify as a mistake." See Consol.

McFadden v. Shore

60 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1945

Grear, 14 N.J.Misc. 807, 187 A. 556 , the defendant enlisted in the United States Army and was sent to the Hawaiian Islands where he hoped to qualify for admission to West Point Military Academy. … The holding that the “usual place of abode” is the place where the defendant is living at the time of service is contrary to the weight of authority holding that where temporary residence is established away from the normal

Pearce v. Pennsylvania R.

7 F.R.D. 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1946

This broad statement of the law has been qualified and limited by the Supreme Court in Hurn v. … In the former, where the federal question averred is not plainly wanting in substance, the federal court, even though the federal ground be not established, may nevertheless retain and dispose of the case upon the nonfederal

AARK RESTAURANT GROUP LLC v. UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2022

Plaintiffs “must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Id. at 1547 (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 517 (1975)). … Plaintiffs’ attempt to frame their injunction request as a review of an agency decision under the Administrative Procedures Act fails because the “APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity is qualified” in that it does not “confer

KEEL III v. SEPTA'S PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITYS C.L.S.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2021

Keel continues to have difficulty clearly articulating his claims to the Court. … Mr, Keel is reminded that if he hopes to file an amended complaint, it must clearly state the name of each defendant in the caption and must clearly state what each defendant did or did not do to cause him harm. Mr.

CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, P.C. v. MERCK & CO., INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2023

A two-step test has been established to determine whether petitioning is a sham. PRE, 508 U.S. at 60–61. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot establish the causal nexus required to prove their state-law claims.

Smith v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

450 F. Supp. 1089 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 1978

In making this determination, the Bureau, pursuant to § 4(a)(2) PUCA, established Smith’s base year 2 as the period from January, 1974, through December, 1974. … Section 201 SUA states: It is the purpose of this title to establish a temporary Federal program of special unemployment assistance for workers who are unemployed during a period of aggravated unemployment and who are not

SANTANA v. BERKS COUNTY JAIL SYSTEM

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2020

July 14, 2014) (affirming validity of Fourth Amendment claim for cell search of pretrial detainee, but granting qualified immunity because there that constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the search … City of Philadelphia, 181 F.3d 339, 356 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting that “a prosecutor acting in an investigative or administrative capacity is protected only by qualified immunity) (citations omitted).

Lehigh Valley 1 LLC v. Whitehall Fiduciary LLC; Lehigh Valley 1 LLC v. Saucon Trust; Whitehall Fiduciary LLC and Saucon Trust v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2025

In the instant matter, HUD’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion sets forth a facial attack because it contends that the Amended Third-Party Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to establish an express waiver of sovereign immunity … Therefore, Whitehall and Saucon cannot prove that there was a waiver of sovereign immunity in this matter sufficient to establish that I have jurisdiction over the case, and the sale of the mortgages is not reviewable by

Johnson v. County of Chester

413 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 1976

subjected the complainant to the deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” … Chester County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, qualifies as an “urban county” under § 5302(a)(6) of the HCDA. 3 .

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. FTS USA, LLC

325 F. Supp. 3d 618 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2018

As the court recognized in Continental Insurance , "common law meanings do not apply were the term is clearly defined in a way that differs from the common law meaning." … If there is any doubt as to whether the facts establish the existence of a duty to defend, they must be resolved in favor of the policyholder. See Biborosch v. Transamerica Ins.

SLATTERY v. MAIN LINE HEALTH, INC.

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

[sic] with natural immunity.” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 34.) … While many health care workers had already been infected at this time, natural immunity was poorly understood and not a substitute for vaccination.

United States v. American Casualty Co.

343 F. Supp. 936 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1972

, and shall serve for a period of four years each, and until their successors are appointed and qualified. … The power to advise on questions of art when required by the President or by either House of Congress clearly is an additional power of the Commission, not limited by the Capitol Building exclusion.

Toole v. United States

443 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1977

Limits should be established for each operation rather than on an overall basis so that each worker may be charged with the responsibility of not exceeding the established limit. . f. … The requirements for shielding cannot be clearly defined because of the great variety of circumstances that surround a given operation.

Slamon v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

386 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1974

In order to prove discrimination in the denial of employment, the plaintiff must show, inter alia, that he applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants. … While plaintiff testified that he desired to return to Westinghouse as a laborer grade (8), lock slot milling machine operator, the evidence clearly demonstrated that such position was not available at the time plaintiff

HARRIS v. KRASNER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2023

“When a prosecutor ‘performs the investigative functions normally performed by a detective or police officer,’ he is [only] entitled to qualified immunity,” not absolute immunity. … As a result, to earn the protection of absolute immunity, a defendant must show that the conduct triggering absolute immunity “clearly appear[s] on the face of the complaint.” Id. (quoting Wilson v.