Case law

United States v. Parenti

326 F. Supp. 717 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1971

Our previous discussion of pre-prosecution expenditures clearly establishes that compliance with the decision in Holland and other cases permitted of no other course. … The defendant’s signature was established by a duly qualified handwriting expert. (Notes of testimony, page 1850 et seq.) The defendant offered no evidence to the contrary. G-90 was properly admitted.

Cooney v. Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Company

288 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1968

The question then arises whether files once classified “investigatory files” .may forever after retain that characterization so as to be immune from disclosure under the statute. … Later cases have clearly established a trend by courts away from merely ratifying the policy reasons asserted by governmental agencies to support a claim of privilege, and have demonstrated instead a greater willingness on

Matter of IJ Knight Realty Corp.

431 F. Supp. 946 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1977

Revenue Code establishes rules for determining the year in which a deduction may be taken. … To qualify a deduction under Section 461(f), four criteria must be met.

James v. Norton

176 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2001

James’s upgrade clearly distinguish this case from a bumping case involving a certain job loss. … Abiona’s high hourly rate, some of this time was clearly excessive. See Rainey v. Phila. Hous.

Gavigan v. Walt Disney World, Inc.

646 F. Supp. 786 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1986

If the only evidence before me was of activity occurring after August 12, 1985 it would clearly be insufficient. … However, the “product” is clearly noted as “Walt Disney World” and, later, “Spring Campaign,” and “Fall Campaign.”

GRABER v. BORESKY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2025

immunity barred relief.9 The Court dismissed that motion without prejudice, giving Plaintiff an opportunity to conduct additional discovery on the qualified immunity question.10 Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal, … In the alternative, Defendant argues that he is protected by qualified immunity.22 A.

WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. McGRAW v. Comcast Corp.

705 F. Supp. 2d 441 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2010

This argument is part and parcel of its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity argument. … Toriseva, counsel for the State) ("[H]ypothetically if there is Federal Court jurisdiction, this case clearly belongs within the MDL.”). 8 .

Pennsylvania Trust Co. v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc.

851 F. Supp. 2d 831 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2011

Plaintiff argues that establishing the cause of a brain injury is a medical question that Corrigan, who is not a medical doctor, is not qualified to answer. … Corrigan is qualified to apply and testify based on this methodology.

Hofacker v. Wells Fargo Bank National Ass'n

179 F. Supp. 3d 463 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2016

In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the ADA, a plaintiff must show “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … We agree with Defendant as Korty-na clearly states: It is true that the question of reasonableness is a factual one.

Speed v. WES Health System

93 F. Supp. 3d 351 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2015

Plaintiff claims her work was considered excellent, and she was well-qualified to perform the duties of her position. Id. at ¶ 13. … In the present posture of this case, I do not need to reach the issue of whether a physical act of self-defense can qualify as protected activity under Title VII.

Rabuffo v. VCA, Inc.

222 F. Supp. 3d 406 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2016

Accordingly, to establish a pri-ma facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show (1) she is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she is otherwise qualified to *414 perform the essential … In short, from May through August 2011, VCA repeatedly and clearly communicated to Rabuffo its concerns about her latex allergy and heart condition and discussed these same concerns internally.

In Re Actiq Sales and Marketing Practices Litig.

790 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2011

The claims of Pennsylvania-based Plaintiff PTC are clearly governed by Pennsylvania law. All alleged actions by Defendant involved marketing Actiq to physicians in Pennsylvania (Pls.' … The following items must be satisfied for a plaintiff to have standing to bring a claim under the IDCSA: (1) plaintiff must be a qualifying "person"; (2) plaintiff must bring claim against a qualified "supplier"; (3) plaintiff

Joseph v. Krull Wholesale Drug Co.

147 F. Supp. 250 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1956

Caples, 1941, 342 Pa. 230, 235 , 20 A.2d 302, 305 , relied on by plaintiff, is clearly distinguishable on its facts. … The custodian and other qualified witnesses have identified them as to character and substance and have established their authenticity to the satisfaction of the court. See N. T. 64-8, 76-8, 92, 93, 110, 111.

Gavron v. Blinder Robinson & Co.

115 F.R.D. 318 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1987

Plaintiff also satisfies the second Rule 23(a)(4) requirement; the attorneys he has retained are qualified and experienced. See, e.g., In re A.M. International, Inc. v. … In either ease, the result would be both unjust and inefficient; the goals of Rule 23, the achievement of “economies of time, effort, and expense,” would clearly be defeated. Cohen, 77 F.R.D. at 695 . 3.

McClean v. Del. Cnty. Hous. Auth.

303 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2018

It is well established that the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim arising in Pennsylvania is two years. 47 "[T]he limitations period begins to run from the time the plaintiff knew, or had reason to know, of … Amounts excluded by this provision must be received under employment training programs with clearly defined goals and objectives, and are excluded only for the period during which the family member participates in the employment

LEWALD v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2023

This can be established when “a decisionmaker possessing final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action issues an official proclamation, policy or edict,” or where a custom is “so permanent and … To establish a claim under the ADA, “plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) they are qualified individuals; (2) with a disability; and (3) they were excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services,

Citta v. Delaware Valley Hospital

313 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1970

Citta competent and otherwise qualified to perform gastrectomies on his own responsibility ?” 24. Dr. … More importantly, the entire course of the hearing was clearly an inquiry into the question whether, on the facts as found by the Staff, restriction of plaintiff’s privileges was appropriate.

Bass v. Clark

340 F. Supp. 3d 463 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2018

A state court ruling is "contrary to" clearly established Supreme Court law if it "applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases," or "confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable … Clearly established federal law governing ineffectiveness claims is set forth in the two-part test of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ; see also Premo v.

SINCLAIR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2026

A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. … Any amended complaint must clearly describe the factual basis for his claims and how each defendant he names was personally involved in the alleged denial of his rights.

Kotrosits v. GATX Corp. Non-Contributory Pension Plan for Salaried Employees

757 F. Supp. 1434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1991

Clearly, that reasoning does not apply to the Fuller sale, which was not a spinoff of stock. … The Plan clearly knew how to condition benefits on lack of employment.