Case law

Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

953 F. Supp. 617 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1997

established. … PP & L argues that Yeagers II immunizes these cash incentives.

Kusner v. First Pennsylvania Corporation

395 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1975

Judge Aldisert was emphatic in his recognition of this well established principle. … , he can later establish a case.

Jones v. Denotaris

29 F. Supp. 3d 517 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2014

As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated more than 30 years ago, Congress’ decision to provide administrative and arbitration remedies for aggrieved blind vendors clearly evidences a policy judgment that the federal courts … Ramsey, 366 F.3d 1 , 9-23 (discussing waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity).

Chamberlain v. Harnischfeger Corp.

516 F. Supp. 428 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1981

Finding that plaintiff failed to establish the minimum contacts constitutionally required, defendant Phillips’ motion was granted by Order of April 9, 1980. … The first condition, that multiple claims for relief or multiple parties are involved, clearly exists; this action is against two defendants. If there are multiple parties, there need only be one claim in the action.

Haffer v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF COM. SYSTEM, ETC.

524 F. Supp. 531 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1981

The court noted that the VA benefits defrayed the costs of the university’s education program and enlarged its pool of qualified applicants. … It is clearly substantial enough to meet any reasonable test. This is not, like Othen , a case of de minimis federal aid. 12 IV.

Bloom v. Waste Management, Inc.

615 F. Supp. 1002 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1985

The waiver of sovereign immunity embodied in the Tort Claims Act, however, is subject to several important limitations and exceptions. … Warner’s contention that the danger was open and obvious because the wires visibly ran to a nearby energy-consuming plant is not convincing, and the factual basis for that argument is not clearly established by the record

DOBROSKY v. LOMETTI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2024

under the Eleventh Amendment, qualified immunity, and absolute immunity in his Motion to dismiss the amended Complaint. … We dismissed the claims as pleaded in the amended Complaint based on Social Worker Lometti’s absolute immunity as a trial witness and did not reach assertions of qualified immunity or Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Adens v. Sailer

312 F. Supp. 923 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1970

In the Social Security Act of 1950,' primarily in response to complaints that states had established waiting lists in administering their Aid For Dependent Children’s (AFDC) programs, 3 Congress provided in 42 U.S.C. § 602 … It is clearly the intent of these statutes and regulations that in view of the crisis nature of the circumstances in which emergency assistance is provided for, such assistance must be furnished immediately and without any

GREENAWAY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2026

White, 457 U.S. 85, 90-91 (1982) (holding that “the Eleventh Amendment by its terms clearly applies to a suit seeking an injunction” and thus precludes both suits for money judgments and suits for injunctive relief); … Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 246-47 (1985) (“mere receipt of federal funds cannot establish that a State has consented to suit in federal court,” 1.e., establish a waiver of sovereign immunity, and if Congress wishes to condition

Watkins v. Director, Administration Department Naval Publications & Forms Center

385 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 1974

The Zimmerman holding is clearly consistent with the Abbott-Laboratories rationale. However, it is equally clear that Zimmerman v. … To support this contention counsel cites three cases which clearly are not persuasive here. Chief Judge Bazelon in Norton v.

PHILADELPHIA ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LP v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2020

In this appeal, PEDP reasserts it arguments that the PUFTA’s legislative history establishes the License is property and that the rules of statutory construction provide that the definition of property in the PUFTA, as … Sovereign immunity bars the fraudulent transfer claims.

Bennett v. Knauer

528 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2007

Although a doctor is not immune from liability for deliberate indifference, “it is well established that as long as a physician exercises professional judgment his behavior will not violate a prisoner’s constitutional rights … This treatment was the result of his doctor’s diagnosis that he had a broken leg and clearly indicates that his medical need was serious.

Poff v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

911 F. Supp. 856 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1996

Indeed, our Court of Appeals has held that “[p]roof of discharge will establish a prima facie showing.” Bellissimo v. Westinghouse Elec. … This language, which prohibits conduct potentially injurious to the actor or the company, clearly encompasses the behavior for which Mr. Poff was discharged. Further, we note that Mr.

United States v. Dawson

556 F. Supp. 418 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1982

Voluminous testimony was submitted on the operations of the drug network established and managed by Dawson and Hoskins. … This statement of the law was clearly erroneous and was properly corrected by the Court. See United States v.

Brooks v. Educators Mutual Life Insurance

206 F.R.D. 96 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2002

it to pay the “qualifying expense” which is defined as the “network’s allowed charge.” … This is clearly not a case where plaintiffs seek primarily injunctive relief. Compare Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 58 (Rule 23(b)(2) met “in actions primarily seeking injunctive relief’).

DENT v. BERKS COUNTY SHERIFF

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

Congress abrogated the States’ immunity pursuant to a valid exercise of its power.”** “The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived its immunity in § 1983 civil rights cases and Congress did not abrogate state immunity … Dent’s claims against the parole officers in their individual capacities may also be barred by qualified immunity, but “[t]he burden of establishing qualified immunity falls to the official claiming it as a defense

In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation

951 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2013

SmithKline Beecham Corp., 274 F.R.D. 127 (E.D.Pa.2010). 2 In 2011, I denied two separate GSK motions for summary judgment, one on causation, and one on Noerr-Pennington immunity. … Under this plan, each class member receives their pro rata share of the net settlement fund, based on their share of qualifying FJonase purchases.

Application of US Authorizing Interception, Etc.

413 F. Supp. 1321 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1976

At this point in the grand jury proceedings, there has been testimony from several witnesses; the Government expects to grant immunity to others, and also anticipates that indictments will be returned; however, the Government … The Lochiatto court was faced with a situation virtually identical to that in Persico : grand jury witnesses who had been granted immunity were held in contempt after refusing to answer questions which they asserted were

SIMMONS v. TAYLOR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2021

immunity, (Mot. to Dismiss 13–16), which protects state actors who have committed constitutional violations if the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, Pearson v. … Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, “a complaint may be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when an affirmative defense appears on its face.” Leveto v.

ELLIOTT v. GEHRET

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2022

States are protected by the Eleventh Amendment unless they clearly consent to be sued, Allen v. … Schafle “KIDNAPPED” him in concert with Judges Gehret and Shuter because he changed his name and nationality, those allegations clearly stem from Ms.