Case law

Greene v. Weinberger

391 F. Supp. 632 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1975

The record clearly establishes, and no one disagrees that the only type of work claimant might possibly do would be that of a sedentary nature. … Perhaps more important, however, even if part-time work would qualify as substantial gainful employment, we have no evidence that such work is available to claimant.

SMITH v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2024

Actions taken in the absence of all jurisdiction are those where the judge clearly had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter—such as a probate judge with authority only over wills and estates presiding over a criminal … Rooker and Feldman established the principle that federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are essentially appeals from state-court judgments. Great W. Mining & Min. Co. v.

Fallon v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center of Southeastern Pennsylvania

200 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2016

The *560 Court held that “the test .., is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies … In sum, Fallon clearly fails to state a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII.

EXP REALTY, LLC v. BOROUGH OF GLENOLDEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2024

Borough is immune from tort liability. … See ECF No. 19-1 at 6 (“Defendant Razzi is not immune from his intentionally tortious conduct, even though Glenolden Borough may be immune).

Kinnally v. Bell of Pennsylvania

748 F. Supp. 1136 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1990

With regard to the second prong, as qualified by the fourth prong, defendants deny that defendants Wetzel and Bosch received appropriate notice within the required period since the amended complaint was not filed until March … Pennsylvania courts have yet to determine clearly whether the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress should be recognized as an actionable tort in this state.

KEZIAH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2026

The timing of the allegedly retaliatory behavior relative to the constitutionally protected conduct may establish a causal link between the two for purposes of establishing motivation. See Watson, 834 F.3d at 422. … App’x. 161 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (granting summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to superintendent of prison who delayed for ten months approval of inmate’s request to marry because it was not clearly established

Leuthe v. Office of Financial Institution Adjudication

977 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1997

Administration were to establish jointly, their own pool of administrative law judges, and develop a set of uniform rules and procedures for administrative hearings ...” … the United States or any instrumentality thereof, he may not rely on the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , but must identify a specific statutory provision that waives the government’s sovereign immunity

PAPARO v. BOROUGH OF YEADON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2022

Defendant Borough of Yeadon’s Claim of Immunity Defendants argue that Defendant Borough of Yeadon is immune from intentional tort claims. (Mot. to Dismiss at 7-8.) Plaintiff concedes this point. … (finding that it would not be appropriate to determine immunity prior to discovery).

Lukman v. Holland

149 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 1957

In that case, the court said, 206 F.2d at pages 394-395: “That section modified the language of the former statute in a manner which shows clearly, we think, that the withholding of deportation in cases where the alien fears … The statute says that, as to qualified deportable aliens, the Attorney General ‘may, in his discretion’ suspend deportation.

AKUBU v. GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2025

Ct. 1991) (establishing that a “finding of ‘willful misconduct’ under § 8550 requires a party to have acted with even more than gross negligence or recklessness”); Martin-McFarlane v. City of Philadelphia, 299 F. … Therefore, in the spirit of Brant and Watson, the Court finds that Akubu’s notice to Warden Williams of his intent to pursue legal action qualifies as protected activity.

In Re Diet Drugs

352 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2004

Bichon and clearly beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations. See KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 413.140(1)(e). IV. … Bichon *544 until the date of the qualifying echocardiogram. Plaintiff is correct that she could not opt out of the Settlement Agreement until she had a qualifying echocardiogram. Settlement Agreement § IV.D.3.

United States v. Frumento

405 F. Supp. 23 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1975

If proven, these facts would clearly establish that the activities of the Bureau affect interstate commerce. … . § 1962 (c) posed by Collitt focuses on whether the Bureau, as a government agency, qualifies as an “enterprise.”

KIRTZ v. TRANS UNION LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 2021

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, it is well established that the United States is protected from suit in federal court unless Congress has waived such immunity. U.S. v. … there is no waiver in the FCRA is bolstered by the fact that established waivers are generally more explicit. Id. at 803–06.

Public Housing Administration v. Bristol Township

146 F. Supp. 859 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1957

held that Congress, in enacting legislation within its constitutional authority, will not be deemed to have intended to invalidate state or local rules for protection of the public safety unless its purpose to do so is clearly … The Ashwander case has laid down the rule to be followed in disposing of federal property, which is the situation before this court, and that case establishes a rule far different from those followed in the cases cited by

ALVAREZ

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2025

Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533-34 (2004) (recognizing that Title II of the ADA validly abrogates state sovereign immunity). … Alvarez will be granted leave to file an amended complaint to clearly set out the factual bases of any ADA claim he seeks to present against the Commonwealth.

MCDONALD-WITHERSPOON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2020

To succeed on a claim under Section 504, a plaintiff must establish the following: “‘(1) he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) he was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services … . § 2310, provides that officials and employees of the Commonwealth, “acting within the scope of their duties, shall continue to enjoy sovereign immunity and official immunity and remain immune from suit except determining

United States v. Frame

658 F. Supp. 1476 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1987

The Act clearly states all of the principal terms and conditions of the beef promotion and research program. … Indeed, the power of Congress to impose taxes is almost immune from constitutional challenge. See McCray v.

Lazzaro v. Franklin Mint Co.

840 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1993

April 8, 1986), District Judge Giles concluded that being replaced by a younger person was one way to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, but that plaintiffs could also establish the fourth prong by direct … Clearly, plaintiff was not replaced by a sufficiently younger person in this case given that Mr. Domosh was only one year younger than plaintiff.

LYLES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2026

Absolute Judicial Immunity Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from civil rights claims based on their acts or omissions taken within their judicial capacity, as long as they do not act in complete absence of … App’ x 725, 730 (3d Cir. 2021) (noting that “[a] privately retained attorney clearly does not act under color of state law, and...

STEVENS v. PHILLY LIV BACON LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2024

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, “an employee must show that [he]: (1) is disabled; (2) is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable … Stevens is incorrect as to his citation, however, as that section provides civil immunity to physicians or qualifying healthcare personnel who render care at the scene of an emergency and is otherwise known as Pennsylvania