Case law

United States v. THE UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2023

A sixth county is also referenced, but as noted below, the Complaint clearly states that this policy was rescinded approximately nine months before the Complaint was filed. … Citing sovereign immunity, the AOPC sought dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint. Id.

Sanneman v. Chrysler Corp.

191 F.R.D. 441 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2000

Each class and sub-class are clearly linked to the alleged misconduct. … However, Plaintiff does not attempt to establish a nationwide class; she seeks only to establish a class in Illinois.

Patriot Party of Pennsylvania v. Mitchell

826 F. Supp. 926 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 1993

While there is a distinction between receiving a percentage of votes to qualify automatically for the general election ballot and having an organization obtain a percentage of the registered voters in the state to qualify … This case is clearly distinguishable from the facts in Perry or Rainbow Coalition.

DRIGGS v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION

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

Instead, the “intent to indemnify against claims by employees of the alleged indemnitor . . . must clearly appear from the terms of the agreement.” Id. … Schindler has no argument that SAM waived its immunity from a contribution claim. IV.

Bickings v. Bethlehem Lukens Plate

82 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2000

In examining the language of a release, the terms of the release will be given their ordinary meaning unless a different meaning was clearly intended. See id. … The Release clearly states that Bickings waived “any and all claims” against Lukens. The Release also included claims “for or by ... any cause, matter, or event whatsoever.”

ATKINSON v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PHILADELPHIA BRANCH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2022

provided EIPs for qualified individuals in three rounds of payments. ECF No. 21-1 at 2. Each round offered $1200, $600, and $1400, respectively. Id. … Here, Plaintiff provided no facts to establish whether he had filed his tax returns for the years 2020 and 2021, or when such forms were filed, beyond stating he “filed [his] 1040 tax form[.]” ECF No. 1 at 1.

Morrone v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare

372 F. Supp. 794 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1974

Establishing a disability is a two-step process. … In the instant case, plaintiff has clearly met his burden of proving that he was “disabled” with a mental disorder from as early as March 1952 that has continued to the present time.

ELLERBE v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2022

A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. … AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015) (“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party asserting its existence.” (citing DaimlerChrysler Corp. v.

South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers

708 F. Supp. 659 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1989

Policy statements of some of the defendant unions qualify this side letter clause. … NLRB, 536 F.2d 550, 555 (3d Cir.1976 (“a waiver of a statutory right must be clearly and unmistakably established, ... and express language will not be read expansively”).

Frintner v. Trueposition

892 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2012

Frintner was qualified for the director position. … TruePosition’s Motion for Summary Judgment To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under either Title VII or the PHRA, 11 a plaintiff must show that (1) she belongs to a protected class, (2) she was qualified for

Guarino v. Larsen

821 F. Supp. 1040 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1993

The record must establish each and every element of the offense. (Citations omitted). 2. (sic.) … It may well be that Judge Guarino was overzealous in his efforts to have all qualified venirepersons available for jury service.

Delgado v. McTighe

91 F.R.D. 76 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1981

Impracticability and numerosity depend on the particular facts of each case and no hard and fast rules have been established by the courts as a basis for making this determination. … The evidence at the class certification hearing clearly showed that the survey was not conducted independently of the attorneys involved in the litigation.

Glasshouse System, Inc. v. International Business MacHines Corp.

607 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2009

IBM responded: “Mainline has responded that they don’t qualify for [special pricing] at SEI.” (Compl. ¶ 35.) GlassHouse was thus the only BP qualified to offer special pricing to SEI. … These circumstances clearly arise from the Agreement, which states the following: • “As our IBM Business Partner ... we approve you to market on our behalf *717 at prices and terms established by IBM.”

K.M. v. Chichester School Dist.

152 F. Supp. 3d 412 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2015

Yet, according to Plaintiffs’ allegations, which I must accept as true for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the school failed to establish systemic policies and procedures necessary to safeguard this highly vulnerable … Plaintiffs have consented to dismissal of the School District’s Superintendent and Director of Transportation, and by separate Order I am dismissing a school bus driver and bus monitor on the basis of qualified immunity,

Jones v. McElroy

429 F. Supp. 848 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1977

More recently Judge Becker reached the same result on the reasoning that recognition of a Bivens action was not clearly necessary in this situation and would be inappropriate because Congress had already acted in the area … Philadelphia is not immune from suit. Phila.Code § 21-701; Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education, 453 Pa. 584 , 305 A.2d 877 (1973).

Bruch v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

640 F. Supp. 519 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1986

The Handbook was available to all salaried employees, and it clearly stated that termination pay was available only in the event of a reduction in force or physical or mental disability. … Thus, he did not have a contingent right to “receive a benefit” from the Stock Plan after November 30, 1980. 8 Finally, although it has not been clearly established that a plaintiff, to prevail on a claim under § 502(c) of

Williams v. Apfel

98 F. Supp. 2d 625 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2000

If an impairment qualifies as a listed impairment, there is no need to consider the last two steps in the sequential evaluation process. … Hansen’s findings are clearly pertinent to a determination of whether Ms. Williams is capable of performing *632 work in the national economy.

Isaacs v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TEMPLE UNIV., ETC.

385 F. Supp. 473 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 11, 1974

They were clearly visualized by both parties beforehand, and deliberately incorporated into the Act. … The phrase “within the framework of . its special commitment to the Commonwealth,” however, significantly qualifies the rest of the statement. That commitment entails an increasing dependence on Commonwealth funds.

Southeastern Penn. Transp. v. Penn. Pub. Util.

210 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2002

Although the language of that statute, which implements the Constitution's full faith and credit clause of Article IV, § 1, refers only to state court judgments, "there `is a clearly established rule that state courts must … Turning to the remaining elements of the collateral estoppel inquiry, Amtrak clearly meets the requirements.

Moyer Packing Co. v. United States

567 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2008

Having established this duty, however, Plaintiff has not established that this duty runs directly to it by statute. Plaintiff relies upon the district court decision in General Public Utilities Corporation v. … Plaintiff clearly benefits from the FSIS’s non-negligent performance of its inspection and testing duties authorized under the FMIA.