Case law

Trainer v. Philadelphia National Bank

541 F. Supp. 195 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1982

the statutorily protected age group — i.e., between 40 and 70; 2. that he was discharged; 3. that he was qualified for the position he held; and 4. that after his discharge, the position remained open and was filled by someone … Tracy and Barr— but these clearly did not raise a significant inference that PNB was engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination.

Hennigan v. Atlantic Refining Company

282 F. Supp. 667 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1967

Thus, the jury’s finding that the City was negligent with respect to the design of the sewer is clearly supported by the evidence. B. … Nuisance, The applicable law under the doctrine of “nuisance” was clearly defined by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Waschak v.

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.

Brown v. Septa

706 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1988

In regard to the liver effects noted among PCB workers, the Profile states they “are inconsistent and not clearly associated with clinically detectable liver disease.” … Nesbit’s curriculum vita that would qualify him to testify as an expert in this area.

STEWART

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2026

“[W]hether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity depends on whether she establishes that she was functioning as the state’s ‘advocate’ while engaging in the alleged conduct that gives rise to the constitutional … The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that District Attorneys and Assistant District Attorneys qualify as a high official for purposes of immunity.” (citations omitted)); Wilson v.

Hackett v. President of Philadelphia

298 F. Supp. 1021 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1969

And, of course, any special election ordered by the President of City Council must comply with the procedures established in other provisions of Pennsylvania’s Election Code, provisions § 1110 (h) (establishing the proper … There is a strong possibility that this course will effect a disenfranchisement of certain voters qualified to cast ballots under state law.

Giuliani v. Springfield Township

238 F. Supp. 3d 670 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2017

As I find that defendants’ actions in this case have a clearly-established rational basis, I will grant summary judgment on the equal protection claim in defendants’ favor. IV. … Having dismissed áll substantíve claims, I need not address either defendants’ qualified immunity argument or their motion for summary judgment as to punitive damages,

Ryan v. General MacHine Products

277 F. Supp. 2d 585 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2003

She knew of the promotions when they happened, and she knew whether she believed she was as qualified for the positions as the male employees who received them. … , between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs

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.

Aetna Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc.

261 F.R.D. 72 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2009

Because the manufacturer designates these products for a particular qualified patient physician or end-user, the acquisition costs do not reflect a legitimate acquisition price for a pharmacy or distributor. … The burden of proof to establish reliability is preponderance of the evidence. Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 744 (3rd Cir. 1994).

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.

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.

JOHNSON v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2023

steps and contact the appropriate authorities who can look into this matter”; and Records Supervisor Lindsay Nye “chose not to respond to [Plaintiff’s] complaint, or to correct the problem when she knew that [he] was clearly … While Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply where (1) Congress has authorized such a suit in the exercise of its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) a state has waived its sovereign immunity by consenting

BROWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2025

He next claims that on September 15, 2025, Judge Johnson “issued a bench warrant without jurisdiction, as paternity had not been established and no lawful order entered.”3 (Id.) … App’x 725, 730 (3d Cir. 2021) (noting that “[a] privately retained attorney clearly does not act under color of state law, and . . . that ‘no color of state law attache[s] to the functions of court-appointed counsel.’”)

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.

Cooper v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

699 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2010

The plaintiff has the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Carpet Group Int’l v. Oriental Rug Imp. Ass’n, 227 F.3d 62, 69 (3d Cir.2000). … With respect to the issue of waiver, the parties have spent the last three years solely litigating the issue of SEPTA’s sovereign immunity.

Atkins v. City of Reading

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2024

McClure’s entitlement to qualified immunity. Notice of Appeal, ECF Nos. 51, 52. … First, to establish a retaliation claim under the First Amendment, a plaintiff must establish “(1) constitutionally protected conduct, (2) retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising

Sotack v. PENNSYLVANIA PROPERTY & CAS. INS. GUAR. ASS'N.

104 F. Supp. 2d 471 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2000

pursuing state objectives, and (3) is controlled by the state, PPCIGA is a government entity under Lebron, 513 U.S. at 400 , 115 S.Ct. 961 . [13] Defendants' motion *480 for summary judgment on the basis that PPCIGA does not qualify … although PPCIGA may have limited discretion in fulfilling its ministerial obligations, it remains constrained by the Act and under the control of the Commissioner at all times. [13] Because PPCIGA is a state entity, it may be immune

Jones v. Clark

607 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 1984

In the present case, the state action requirement is clearly met. Defendant acted in his official capacity as a state prison employee in the alleged deprivations. … Clearly the plaintiff has a protected property interest in the $6.40 taken out of his prison account.

Gutknecht v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

950 F. Supp. 667 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 1996

Under a McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must first present a prima facie case by establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) he is over 40 years old, (2) he is qualified for the position in question … The sales figures clearly demonstrate a decline in the financial performance of the West area.