Case law

Kelly v. Drexel University

907 F. Supp. 864 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 1995

To establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must show (1) that he belongs to the protected class, (2) that he applied for and was qualified for the job; (3) that he was rejected despite his qualifications; and (4) that the … There is no other evidence of record to show that plaintiff actually applied for a particular position for which he was qualified.

GOODEN v. WALTON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2022

Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 116 (8d Cir. 2000)). 8 3 The Commonwealth Defendants invoke qualified immunity, which shields state officials from liability if their conduct doesn’t violate a clearly established constitutional … Still, sovereign immunity does not bar Gooden’s claim. See § 8522(b)(3).

Doe v. American Red Cross

727 F. Supp. 186 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1989

of an Ohio federal circuit court to entertain a suit brought by the Second Bank of the United States to enjoin the Auditor of Ohio from levying on Bank assets to collect a tax imposed in alleged contravention of the Bank immunity … However, in view of the limited nature of the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts it seems desirable that this right be clearly stated in the Charter. The argument has a certain plausibility.

Colombo v. Johns-Manville Corp.

601 F. Supp. 1119 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1984

For Pittsburgh-Corning’s tort-based claims, I must begin with the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity for tort claims. … See 33 U.S.C. § 905 (b). 7 That section makes vessel owners liable for negligence to those who qualify under the Act’s definition of “employee.” Id.; see Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v.

Jeanes Hospital v. SIBELIUS

747 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2010

In assessing whether reasonable consideration was exchanged, a determination must be made as to whether the value of the assets exchanged was close enough to qualify as reasonable consideration. … ” based on the revelation that there had been a “$10 million calculation error for the value of the land, land improvements, buildings, and equipment” that was transferred from the seller, the record in the instant case clearly

Hickman v. TL Transp., LLC

318 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2018

Here, the two hours of purported overtime incorporated in the flat rate were clearly paid without regard to the number of hours any employee worked in excess of eight hours in a day. … But these two anomalies do nothing to call into question the broader picture established by the record.

Burks v. City of Philadelphia

904 F. Supp. 421 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1995

STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Quoting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), 4 Defendants contend that the court should grant their motion if they “clearly establish^ ] that no material issue of fact remains … Plaintiffs’ Standing to Sue Plaintiffs’ complaint must establish three elements to successfully plead standing.

In Re Queen Ltd.

361 F. Supp. 1009 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1973

The Poznan cases do not establish the dead ship doctrine. Next, the trustees urge that Hercules Co., Inc. v. The Brig. Gen. Absolom Baird, 214 F.2d 66 (3d Cir. 1954) is controlling. … This claim clearly should be accorded lien status. Claim no. 82, filed by Belcher Oil Company, in the amount of $8,599.38 was for fuel and lubricating oil.

Palmer v. Weaver

512 F. Supp. 281 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1981

Small Business Administration, 380 F.Supp. 1059, 1060 (E.D.Pa.1974), a case factually similar to the instant matter, the court stated: The law has been clearly established that a court can review any SBA decision only if … The moving party has the burden of clearly establishing both of these conditions.

Mida Manufacturing Co. v. Femic, Inc.

539 F. Supp. 159 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 1982

Axelrod is not qualified or registered to do business in any other jurisdiction, including Pennsylvania. … Sections 1391(a), 1391(d) and 1391(e) are clearly inapplicable to this action.

Walker-Davis Publications, Inc. v. Penton/IPC, Inc.

509 F. Supp. 430 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1981

Circulation refers to the number of magazines distributed to qualified “primary recipients.” … Under the facts in this case, therefore, the statements were certainly neither false nor misleading, as they clearly referred to past circulation figures.

Alexander v. Polk

459 F. Supp. 883 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1978

This clearly implicates the procedural due process guarantee of the fourteenth amendment. … As I indicated in the discussion of jurisdiction under section 1331, these plaintiffs have clearly presented a substantial constitutional claim.

Brownell v. State Farm Mutual Insurance

757 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1991

Clearly, State Farm and Worldwide are not enterprises within the ambit of § 1962(c). … The Commonwealth required continuing payments unless the insurer qualified for a supersedeas.

Quinones v. TOWNSHIP OF UPPER MORELAND, ETC., PA.

187 F. Supp. 260 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 1960

In other words, if the Township of Upper Moreland was engaged in a governmental function in the construction of this sewer, it would enjoy immunity from the plaintiff’s suit. … Since there are contractual provisions of indemnity, the question of common law indemnity drops out of the case initially. 7 The jury’s verdict established that the Township was negligent in not requiring the trench to be

Gallo v. City of Philadelphia

975 F. Supp. 723 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1997

. *727 In addition to the constitutional elements necessary to establish a claim under § 1983, 5 a plaintiff alleging malicious prosecution must demonstrate that (1) the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the … First, there must be a deprivation of Gallo's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. Baker v.

VANGJELI v. BANKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2020

The movant bears the initial responsibility to establish the basis for the motion for summary judgment and identify the portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. … CONCLUSION This case clearly belongs in the realm of jury assessment and deliberation, and that is where it will head as soon as conditions permit.

WHITE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2024

These decisions established that the duty to provide Brady material rests on the prosecution and White did not have a duty to “ferret out” such material himself. Id. … DeSimone clearly violated Brady.

HENRY v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2020

But to prove that Lazar committed willful misconduct, Plaintiffs “must establish that the actor desired to bring about the result that followed, or at least it was substantially certain to follow, i.e., specific intent. … Because Plaintiffs’ NIED claim does not fall under the nine enumerated exceptions to immunity under § 8542(b), Lazar is immune to Count XI; the Court need not determine whether S.J.K.H.’s father and Lazar had a qualifying

Burgos v. PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM

760 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 2011

These facts, as alleged, raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether PHS’s actions qualify as a policy for municipal liability. … Thus, because PHS’s actions, as alleged, qualify as a policy, municipal liability may apply.

Porter v. Nationscredit Consumer Discount Co.

229 F.R.D. 497 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2005

LEGAL STANDARD To prevail on the instant Motion, Plaintiff must establish that all four prerequisites of Fed R. Crv. … In close cases there is a strong presumption in favor of courts granting class certification; however, the legal analysis set forth below establishes that Plaintiffs in this case clearly fail to meet the requirements set