Case law

United States v. McNally

338 F. Supp. 341 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1972

Therefore, assuming probable cause was shown, the warrants were clearly valid at the time of their issuance, and it is clearly established that evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant may be used against a party … These observations clearly do not establish with any probability that defendant was involved in any way with the wagering activities.

Herzig v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

693 F. Supp. 306 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 1988

In the event that the non-moving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party’s case,” the Federal Rules mandate the entry of summary judgment against that party. … Under this definition, the Lamar vehicle would qualify as an underinsured motor vehicle.

Aljadir v. University of Pennsylvania

547 F. Supp. 667 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1982

Plaintiff alleges that he was not considered for the opening and that the candidate selected by the defendant was less qualified and was selected because he was of North American origin. … Plaintiffs must clearly allege the fraudulent concealment in their complaint to be entitled to the invocation of the tolling doctrine by the court. Freedman v.

Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Borough Council of Public Works

381 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1974

Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. … As noted, it is clearly unreasonable to say that the right to have the box displayed must depend upon the discretion of the merchant and, at that, only a merchant who sells newspapers from his *244 own establishment as part

Hockenbury v. Ribicoff

199 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 1961

On February 16, 1959,, plaintiff filed with the Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance of the Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, applications to establish a period of disability … ‘Any substantial gainful activity’ is such activity for which the'particular claimant is reasonably qualified by education, training, or skill.”

United States v. Wade

546 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 1982

The statute clearly separates the duties imposed upon generators from those of dump site owners. … In fact, the regulations clearly state, “the manifest system established in Sub-part B regulations comes to a close when manifested hazardous waste is received by a treatment, storage or disposal facility.” 43 Fed.Reg. 58,984

Serventi v. Bucks Technical High School

225 F.R.D. 159 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2004

Actions requesting declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy conduct directed at the class clearly fit this mold.” Id. at 58 . … Factors 1-6: Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages and Maintaining the Class Action There was a risk of establishing liability because some of the legal issues raised in the case had never been decided (e.g., whether

Ramirez v. Palmer Twp.

292 F. Supp. 3d 609 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2018

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment action despite being qualified … Therefore, those incidents clearly happened and were not "drummed up" by Sergeant Smith.

Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. v. LaserOptek America Corp., et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2026

Strata argues that it is immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, an immunity grounded in the First Amendment’s right to petition courts. … Statements a party makes outside of court, as to investors, receive only a qualified privilege. Pelagatti, 536 A.2d at 1345–46.

Grande v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

83 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2000

Lucent Tech., Inc., 78 F.Supp.2d 402, 415 (E.D.Pa. 2000) (noting that transfers are not automatically immune from scrutiny). … In this case, however, no such qualifying circumstances exist: plaintiff has presented no evidence suggesting that the transfer was anything but a full-fledged job.

Silvis v. Ambit Energy, L.P.

90 F. Supp. 3d 393 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2015

-5. 4 Plaintiff also argues that, *398 even if the forum-selection clause is part of the agreement at issue, it is nonetheless both proeedurally and substantively unconscionable as an adhesion contract that “effectively immunize … Although the Supreme Court in Atlantic Marine forbade consideration of the "original venue's choice-of-law rules,” 134 S.Ct. at 582 , the Court does not consider them here, where the substantive law that applies is clearly

In Re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litigation

759 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1991

The liability jury found that the defendant had, indeed, violated the antitrust laws by conduct which was not immune from antitrust scrutiny, and the damages jury found that plaintiffs’ damages were attributable to non-immune … Plaintiff clearly established that its demur-rage expenses have sharply declined with the advent of self-unloader-private dock transportation of pelletized ore.

Burstein v. Retirement Account Plan for Employees of Allegheny Health Education & Research Foundation

263 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 2002

Apr. 1, 1998) (stating that it is clearly established in this circuit that claim for benefits under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is governed by plan’s formal governing instrument rather than SPD) (citing Gridley v. … Plaintiffs assert that Mellon qualifies as a named fiduciary under the Plan.

Jones v. Wetzel

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2025

The parties proceeded to discovery and Wetzel, Little, and Long now seek summary judgment on the merits and based on qualified immunity.27 II. … Defendants are entitled to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.39 Because the Court will grant summary judgment on the merits of the claims, the Court does not reach the issue of qualified immunity or whether

RHOADES v. ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2024

(e) If the exposed person is deceased, the qualified physician, or someone working under the direct supervision and control of a qualified physician, may obtain the evidence required in paragraphs (b) and (d) … To determine whether Defendants have shown that the test for government contractor immunity is established, each prong under Boyle will be discussed in turn. 1.

Lomax v. Smith

501 F. Supp. 119 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1980

The third requirement is clearly satisfied, since the plaintiff here was the defendant in the prior criminal proceeding. … Defendants’ uncontroverted affidavits establish that only Detective Smith participated in the actual gathering of evidence.

Royal Insurance v. Ideal Mutual Insurance

649 F. Supp. 130 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1986

Earl Vincent, who was a qualified and experienced pilot and who operated a charter aviation company known as Mercury Aviation. 28. … , a conversion is established as a matter of law.

Davila v. Weinberger

408 F. Supp. 738 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1976

The claimant must also establish that he became “disabled” prior to the expiration of his insured status. … Although plaintiff was not represented by counsel at the hearing, he was clearly advised of his right to have counsel present and instead chose to have Mr. Luna act as his representative.

Menneti v. Evans Construction Co.

160 F. Supp. 372 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1958

The evidence does not establish at what hours t-he rainfall of May 26 began and ended. … If this is the law of Pennsylvania then *380 clearly plaintiff did not, and in fact could never, fulfill the second alternative of condition (c) of § 339.

Williams v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

230 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2002

Accordingly, in order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, he must show that: 1) he is “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA; 2) he is otherwise qualified for the job; and 3) … Thus, PHA's perception of plaintiff's disability was clearly more limiting than his actual disability or record of disability.