Case law

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

United States v. Johns-Manville Corporation

245 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 1965

Since, as discussed above, Certain-teed’s affidavits emphatically deny any knowledge of the joinder of a conspiracy to restrict competition by Certain-teed, this allegation of the Complaint has clearly been denied by Certain-teed … Meyer, as President of Certain-teed, is qualified to make such a statement. Of course, this statement is as far as Mr. Meyer knows, and he cannot know what all such personnel do at all times.

NATIVIDAD v. RALEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2024

Thus, a defendant must show that conduct triggering absolute immunity “clearly appear[s] on the face of the complaint.” Jd. (quoting Wilson v. Rackmiull, 878 F.2d 772, 776 (3d Cir. 1989)). … Discovery may reveal a different result, but Sax has not shown that conduct triggering absolute immunity appears clearly on the face of the complaint.? See Fogle, 957 F.3d at 161. document. Pension Ben. Guar.

MOSES v. SORBER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2023

The PA DoC is Entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity from § 1983 Claims The DoC is immune from suit, including those brought under § 1983, under the 11th Amendment as a state’s immunity extends to its agencies and … This immunity is well-established and ironclad.

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.

Eshelman v. Agere Systems, Inc.

397 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2005

To state a cognizable cause of action under the ADA, Eshelman must establish she is a “qualified individual with a disability.” 2 See 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a); Marinelli v. City of Erie, 216 F.3d 354, 359 (3d Cir.2000). … Read as a whole, therefore, the instructions clearly submitted the case on the appropriate theories. An appropriate order follows.

FRANCIS v. SMITH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2024

Pa. 2014) (finding judges who presided over protection from abuse, custody, and divorce proceedings were entitled to immunity because plaintiff did not show an absence of jurisdiction and immunity applied despite allegations … App’x 725, 730 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (noting that “[a] privately retained attorney clearly does not act under color of state law, and . . .

Katz v. Abrams

549 F. Supp. 668 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1982

Sobel’s admission under plaintiffs theory would have to qualify as an admission on agency principles. This attempt is thwarted by the fact that Mr. … The admissions exception has clearly not been satisfied. No issue of fact exists.

Pennoyer v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.

324 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2004

We find that Plaintiff establishes a viable false imprisonment claim that may be brought to trial. … Both Plaintiff and the LPOs clearly testified that Marriott security kept Plaintiff from leaving before the Philadelphia police arrived.

In re the Complaint of Moran Philadelphia

175 F. Supp. 3d 508 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2016

“Unless otherwise agreed, a course of dealing between the parties gives meaning to or supplements or qualifies their agreement. … The court noted that contracts “may validly incorporate by reference terms from other documents or agreements,” and that it is “well established that ‘evidence of a prior course of dealing may establish a party’s awareness

Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Bank of America, N.A.

48 F. Supp. 3d 787 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2014

HAMP program directives expressly provide for qualifying the surviving heirs of deceased borrowers. (Id. ¶ 30.) … While the law is clearly unsettled as to the scope of.

In Re Penn Central Transportation Company

333 F. Supp. 77 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1971

Petitioner’s contention that the correct amount to be accounted for by reason of the Adirondack branch transaction is $511,044.82, is clearly without merit. … Under the circumstances, it would seem that these parties should have been uniquely qualified to judge the correct value to be assigned to the Gold Bonds which were deposited.

Lotman v. Security Mutual Life Insurance

332 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1971

Shortly thereafter, Bernard Lotman and Abraham Glazer (the decedent’s husband) qualified as co-administrators of her estate. … In Schleifer , after stating that “[t]he record quite clearly manifests that from all the evidence presented a serious factual dispute arose as to whether the decedent had knowingly given false answers,” the Supreme Court

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).

Atlantic Used Auto Parts v. City of Philadelphia

957 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1997

According to Plaintiffs, these cases “clearly dictate[ ] that a municipality is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the municipality itself is the actor which causes the deprivation of an individual’s [constitutional right. … Rather, questions remain concerning (1)whether the City is immune from liability for conversion under these circumstances pursuant to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. §§ 8541 et seq., and (2

Gillyard v. Geithner

81 F. Supp. 3d 437 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2015

The Court need not decide whether the MSPB filing constitutes a “protected activity,” as it occurred during the same time period as the OSC complaint, which undis-putedly qualifies as a “protected activity.” … In general, he claims that “since [he] started engaging in filing of formal complaints in December 2008[sic], the Agency have [sic] consistently denied his applications for positions that he was clearly qualified for.”

Wilson v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

709 F. Supp. 623 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1989

SEPTA’s practice clearly does not conform to the requirements of the PUMTL. 3 *626 Since the chief operations officer is authorized to establish compensation only within salary scales established by the board, and the board … This consideration is clearly irrelevant to plaintiff’s case.

Santiago v. McElroy

319 F. Supp. 284 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1970

Having reviewed the cases in which these factors have been adjusted, we think it is fair to conclude that due process generally requires “ * * * the kinds of ‘notice’ and ‘hearing’ which are aimed at establishing the validity … And even if distress sales were to qualify as a time-honored procedure, it is also true that the blessing of age wears out. Moragne v.

Martin v. Municipal Publications

510 F. Supp. 255 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1981

Martin, as one of some 15,000 Mummers, does not possess the requisite fame and notoriety to qualify as a public figure for all purposes. … Martin also may be able to establish that she is entitled to recover for the loss of his services, society and companionship. Accordingly, I will deny summary judgment on Mrs. Martin’s claim.

BEARD v. PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR AGING

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2023

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: “(1) [s]he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … disease” or “impaired immune system.”