Case law

Wolford v. General Cable Co.

58 F.R.D. 583 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1973

Clearly, the physical and chemical properties and behavior of cable like that in question are subjects *587 about which experts may testify. … I think he is qualified to testify as an expert witness on the properties of the cable. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be denied. .

Commonwealth of Pa. v. O'NEILL

465 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1979

On July 7, 1972, after 5Vz days of hearings on plaintiffs’ application for preliminary relief, I concluded that plaintiffs had clearly established that the existing entrance and promotional examinations did *453 discriminate … There is no suggestion that highly qualified whites should be passed over in favor of less well-qualified blacks. The problem is to determine just who is truly well-qualified and who is not as well qualified.

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.

Defeo v. Sill

810 F. Supp. 648 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1993

Dismissal is not appropriate unless it clearly appears that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. … Privileges and Immunities The purposes of the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 1, the only provision cited by plaintiffs, is to ensure that rights granted by a state to its citizens are not withheld

County Council of Northampton County v. SHL Systemhouse Corp.

60 F. Supp. 2d 456 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1999

The implementation of a plan that includes a system as sophisticated as the CAD system clearly requires specialized business and technical judgment and professional skill. … Several courts have determined that provision of emergency ambulance or medical services is a governmental function for the purposes of sovereign, governmental or statutory immunity. See, e.g., Overman v.

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.

United Steelworkers of America v. Rohm & Haas Co.

683 F. Supp. 2d 355 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2010

Instead, the nonmoving party “must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to his case, based on the affidavits or by the depositions and admissions on file.” Harter v. … If you don’t qualify for income from any other source, your entire benefit will come from the Company’s program.

District Council v. Seatrain Lines, Inc.

377 F. Supp. 1278 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1973

Here, the area of controversy is clearly delineated. … Specifically, the defendants suggest that their activities were implementations of an existing approved agreement and therefore immune from antitrust penalties. Section 15, Shipping Act, supra. Cf. Hughes Tool Co. v.

In Re Milstein

304 B.R. 208 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2004

Regrettably, but clearly, this unrebutted record establishes cause for modification of the automatic stay. The Debtor’s responses do nothing to alter the fact. … On this score, the Debtor’s challenge herein to the amount of Mellon’s Bank’s proof of claim is futile, as the judgment is immune from collateral attack under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine.

Orefice v. Laurelview Convalescent Center, Inc.

66 F.R.D. 136 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1975

Reason clearly warrants such a conclusion. … In the instant case, Applebaum as de facto controller of defendant qualifies in our judgment under the “managing or general agent” category of 4(d)(3).

Grasty v. Astrue

661 F. Supp. 2d 515 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2009

and customer service representative qualified as semiskilled and sedentary work. … Here, the ALJ considered the opinion, of Wisdo in relation to all other available medical evidence and articulated clearly the reasons for rejecting Wisdo’s assessment.

COLEMAN v. PARKING VIOLATIONS BRANCH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2021

The Commonwealth is a state, and it has not waived its immunity. Nor has Congress abrogated its immunity. Mr. Coleman does not argue otherwise. … It therefore does not qualify as a debt collector. Because Mr.

Knoll v. Phoenix Steel Corporation

325 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1971

The priorities on termination here were established when the basic agreement was entered into. The foregoing discussion sharpens the issue presented here. … It apparently did so, to some extent, in lowering the qualifying age to 60.

MacRae v. Afro-American Company

172 F. Supp. 184 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 1959

For the purpose of argument this may be admitted, but it is of no help to defendant, since the words are reasonably capable of a meaning that is clearly defamatory. … There was very little, if any, evidence-tending to establish the truth of the-statements, and the issue of substantial, contrasted with literal, truth was not argued to the jury.

Blackwell-Murray v. PNC Bank

963 F. Supp. 2d 448 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2013

Defendant now argues that Plaintiff has failed to establish either that he was qualified for his position or that similarly situated individuals who were not members of his protected class were treated more favorably. a. … First, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he met his performance goals in order to qualify for incentive payments.

Mzamane v. Winfrey

693 F. Supp. 2d 442 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2010

Second, Defendants do not contest that these statements clearly qualify as “of and concerning” Plaintiff. … Such a charge is clearly capable of defamatory meaning.

White v. Snear

313 F. Supp. 1100 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 1970

Further, the facts clearly indicate discrimination. Defendants have control over county employees. … In the election of County Commissioners, each qualified elector is permitted to vote for no more than two persons. 16 P.S. § 3501. This voting procedure permits minority representation on the Board. 3 .

Leonard v. Educators Mutual Life Insurance

620 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2007

it was established or as it is maintained.” … In Peterson , the Ninth Circuit had held that a plan remains ERISA qualified if it covers an employee other than the owner at the time the plan was established.

Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Solebury Township

507 F. Supp. 33 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1980

The complaint alleges that defendants’ conduct: (1) has violated “rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, including plaintiffs’ rights to notice and opportunity for hearing and … Under the doctrine of abstention, a federal court may decline to exercise or postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction in certain exceptional circumstances where repair to the state court would clearly serve an important

Aldossari v. RIPP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2021

Once sovereign 11 status is established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish that an exception to immunity applies. Id. Mr. … This Convention codifies customary international law regarding state immunity and establishes that Saudi Arabia maintains its claim to sovereign immunity. Mr.