Case law

Neely v. Eshelman

507 F. Supp. 78 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1981

Rotolo v. Boro of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920 (3d Cir. 1976); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967). … Where employees of the parole board engage in duties which are administrative rather than adjudicative in nature, they are entitled to qualified good faith immunity from suit for their actions. Thompson v.

Poster v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp.

25 F.R.D. 18 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 1960

Early the following winter, while plaintiff-libellant was employed aboard Gulf’s ship, that ship was in the Suez Canal area and again natives were permitted to board her to assist the cooks, etc. … The case of McNeil v. American Export Lines, Inc., D.C.E.D.Pa.1958, 166 F.Supp. 427 involved a similar situation.

ROBERTS v. SCOTT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2020

But see Sanchez v. Brown, Civ. A. No. 20-832, 2020 WL 2615931, at *12 (N.D. Tex. … Claims Against the Board Roberts cannot state a plausible claim against the Board because the Board is not subject to suit under § 1983.

University of Maryland at Baltimore v. Peat

736 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 1990

In Burford v. … See Penn General Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 189 , 55 S.Ct. 386 , 79 L.Ed. 850 (1935); Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U.S. 176 , 55 S.Ct. 380 , 79 L.Ed. 841 (1935); Aims Enterprises, Inc. v.

Wernhardt v. Koenig

60 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 10, 1945

It further appears from a letter from the National War Labor Board, dated March 4, 1944, which by agreement of the parties was considered by the 'Court as though incorporated into the pleadings, that the hourly rates, upon … Fitzsimons v. Eagle Brewing Co., 3 Cir., 107 F.2d 712 , 126 A.L.R. 681 . The result is that these plaintiffs can not base any claims on such agreements. The motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.

COM. FOR NEW MGT. OF GUAR. BANCSHARES CORP. v. Dimeling

772 F. Supp. 230 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 1991

Ehst is also a Committee nominee for the Guaranty Board of Directors ("Board"). (2) Marjorie M. … United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U.S. 351, 354 , 108 S.Ct. 1179, 1181-82 , 99 L.Ed.2d 368 (1988) (citing Ashwander v.

WM High Yield Fund v. O'Hanlon

964 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2013

Co., Ltd. v. … See generally United States v.

Verde v. City of Philadelphia

862 F. Supp. 1329 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 1994

Plaintiff specifically names individual defendants David Glancey, the chairman of the Board, Enrico Foglia, the Executive Director of the Board, Eugene P. … Davey, the Administrator of the Board, William Jameison, a supervisor at the Board, and Harry Goldberg, an evaluator for the *1332 Board (the named defendants).

Bond v. County of Delaware

368 F. Supp. 618 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1973

Compare Pickering v. Board of Education, supra, with Shelton v. Tucker, supra. … Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 573, 92 S.Ct. 2701 .

Torres v. Asset Acceptance, LLC

96 F. Supp. 3d 541 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2015

Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450 , 453-54 (3d Cir.2006). … Brown, 464 F.3d at 454. At the same time, the standard retains a measure of objectivity. It “does not go so far as to provide solace to the willfully blind or nonobservant.” Campuzano-Burgos v.

In Re Brown

311 B.R. 409 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2004

Tolve v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 31 Fed.Appx. 73, 75 (3d Cir. Mar.22, 2002), citing Washington v. … Finally, the Court further looked to Robbins v.

Moorehead v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2024

Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997). … See LaVerdure v. County of Montgomery, 324 F.3d 123, 126 (3d Cir. 2003) (acknowledging “School Board members” are “entrusted with a policymaking role for the School District.”) (quoting Zugarek v. S. Tioga Sch.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Farmer

865 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1994

In the cover letter to its Report of Examination as of December 15, 1984 — sent to Horizon’s board on June 13, 1985 — the FHLBB expressed its concerns to Horizon’s board regarding these loans: We express to the board our … The "continued vitality of Holmberg and its progeny,” the Dawson court observed, has been put into doubt in the wake of the Supreme Court’s more recent decisions in Board of Regents v.

RAJAN v. Crawford

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2022

(citing Tucker v. Fischbein, 237 F.3d 275, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (applying Pennsylvania law)); see also 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343; Bell v. Mayview State Hosp., 853 A.2d 1058, 1061 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (quoting Brown v. … Bell, 853 A.2d at 1061 (quoting Brown, 833 A.2d at 1173 n.14). Whether a statement is defamatory is a question of law for the court. Bell, 853 A.2d at 1061–62 (quoting Feldman v. Lafayette Green Condo.

Fraser v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

135 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2001

Tolsma received the Review Board’s split decision in a report. The report listed some of the points raised by the Board in arriving at the split decision. … Jackson v.

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Cortés

218 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2016

Each district has an election board which is composed of a judge of election and majority and minority inspectors of elections, id. § 2671, and each member of that board must be a qualified elector of the election district … Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 , 112 S.Ct. 2059 , 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992) (quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974)).

Jiffy Lube International, Inc. v. Jiffy Lube of Pennsylvania, Inc.

848 F. Supp. 569 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1994

See Panamerican Consulting Co. v. Brown, 238 Md. 438 , 238 Md. 548 , 209 A.2d 575, 581-82 . (1965). Pennsylvania law requires the same election of remedies. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated in Nocito v. … . ■ The second period of time that Pennzoil employees sat on JLI’s board, after Jan *581 uary 8,1990, began only after JLI’s allegedly wrongful conduct towards Elph .occurred. 16 Thus, Pennzoil representation on JLI’s board

Faulkner v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

221 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2002

Exhaustion Under § 2241 In his habeas petition, Faulkner does not contest the determination of the Board of Probation and Parole (“the Board”) that he violated his parole; instead, he challenges the Board’s recalculation … See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971); McCandless v. Vaughn, 172 F.3d 255, 261 (3d Cir.1999); Toulson v. Beyer, 987 F.2d 984, 987 (3d Cir.1993).

Roberts v. United Transportation Union

368 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1973

In the case of Roberts v. … Plaintiffs apparently do not wish to present their claims to the National Railroad Advisory Board.

Odesser v. Continental Bank

676 F. Supp. 1305 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1987

Assoc, v. Touche Ross & Co., 782 F.2d 966, 970 (11th Cir.1986); accord Hill v. Equitable Bank, 655 F.Supp. 631 , *1312 652 (D.Del.1987); Pappas v. NCNB Natl. … Machinery v.