Case law

Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge

948 F. Supp. 1258 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1996

Such suits are deemed to be against officials and not the States or their agencies, which retain their immunity against all suits in federal court. … The question presented to the Court was whether plaintiffs could seek the requested relief under § 1983 even though the federal habeas statute clearly provided a specific federal remedy.

Eckenrode v. Pennsylvania R.

71 F. Supp. 764 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1947

The locomotive was being driven by Sunderlin, the fireman, who was also a ■qualified engineer. He was sitting in the cab on the right side. … Co., 321 U.S. 29, 32 , 64 S.Ct. 409, 411 , 88 L.Ed. 520 , the Supreme Court considered the whole question of the sufficiency of evi-. dence to establish causation.

COOPER v. FERMAN

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

That is, the Court has held that the Amendment establishes that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another state.” Id. at 100. … These actions clearly occurred within these Defendants’ roles as advocates for the Commonwealth.

Arsenio K. Washington v. Citizens Bank, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2026

It is the plaintiff’s burden under Rule 8 to reasonably investigate his claims, to research the relevant law, to plead only viable claims, and to plead those claims concisely and clearly, so that a defendant can readily … “Policy is made when a decisionmaker possess[ing] final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action issues an official proclamation, policy, or edict.” Est. of Roman v.

Miller v. General Electric Co.

562 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1983

Finally, there was sufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff was qualified for the position of materials manager. … As to the statistical data regarding the Philadelphia Apparatus Service Shop, admittedly a limited data set, there is clearly no statistical evidence of discrimination based on age. In August, 1977, when Mr.

TRINITY HOUSING, INC. v. United States

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

Under settled principles of sovereign immunity, “the United States, as sovereign, ‘is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued.’” United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990) (internal citations omitted). … First, the “party’s later position must be ‘clearly inconsistent’ with its earlier position.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

United States v. Lansdowne Swim Club

713 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 10, 1989

establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment. … Otherwise, a membership could reject applicants because of their race and yet be immune from liability because the voting process could not be penetrated. The second reason advanced by LSC was Ms.

Fisher v. Walsh Parts & Service Co., Inc.

296 F. Supp. 2d 551 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2003

The Court, however, finds that plaintiff have not established then-failure to warn claim. … Plaintiffs’ third argument also fails to establish grounds for strict liability.

Disability Rights Pa. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila.

377 F. Supp. 3d 482 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2019

Judgment on the pleadings "is appropriate if 'the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Jackson v. … Defendants warn that a ruling in Plaintiff's favor would undermine the IDEA'S purpose, displacing parents' role in the "cooperative process" of providing a FAPE to qualifying students by replacing parents with a third-party

Brennan v. Independence Blue Cross

949 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1996

In the instant case, Plaintiffs have argued that Defendants’ subrogation right has been waived. 7 In order to establish such *310 a waiver by Defendants, Mr. … Clearly, Mr. Thistle's first-hand knowledge is at.issue in this regard. If Mr.

BRILL v. EINFALT 477

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2025

Separately, the Defendant Officers argue that even if Plaintiff has set forth a viable claim, the officers should be afforded qualified immunity. See id. at 12-14. … immunity.

Bonjorno v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.

518 F. Supp. 102 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1981

Such an argument is clearly incorrect. … I certainly didn’t establish that it’s accurate.”

Katz v. AT & T Corp.

63 F. Supp. 2d 583 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 1999

In the context of these claims it is clearly implied that the processing is being performed on data. … 1 and the *638 required software to perform the function of qualifying callers. c.

Silo v. City of Philadelphia

593 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 1984

County, filed Feb. 1971), which established the rights of certain inmates at Holmesburg. Mr. … Silo’s claim that the defendants have denied him access to the Court of Common Pleas, however, is not clearly frivolous.

SHIPPENSBURG URBAN DEVELOPERS v. United States

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

Under settled principles of sovereign immunity, “the United States, as sovereign, ‘is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued.’” United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990) (internal citations omitted). … First, the “party’s later position must be ‘clearly inconsistent’ with its earlier position.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

Philadelphia Welfare Rights Organization v. O'Bannon

517 F. Supp. 501 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1981

Clearly, plaintiffs’ contention that “the notice sent to recipients was seriously deficient for it failed to fully and clearly explain the proposed cutbacks as well as denying individuals a right to a hearing” meets the test … It is well established that unless the agency’s construction of its own regulation is clearly erroneous the court should accord the agency interpretation great deference. See Lucas Coal Co. v.

DENT v. MORRIS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2022

Under Supreme Court precedent, the “presumption is that qualified rather than absolute immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties” and the Court “ha[s] been ‘quite sparing … We need not delve into the absolute versus qualified immunity analysis as Mr.

Frederick L. v. Department of Public Welfare

217 F. Supp. 2d 581 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2002

More specifically, Pennsylvania’s system of publicly funded mental health care rests on the statutory structure established under the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966 (“MH/MR Act”), 50 Pa. Cons.Stat. … Specifically, I have found that Defendants DPW and Houstoun have waived their sovereign immunity to suit under the Rehabilitation Act. See Frederick L., 157 F.Supp.2d at 516-23.

Rollins v. Sullivan

784 F. Supp. 253 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 1992

He characterizes the thirty-day time limit in 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(B) as a waiver of sovereign immunity whose interpretation goes to the jurisdiction of this court; he further contends that jurisdictional rulings must … by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.

BASS v. DELAWARE COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS

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

A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. … AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015) (“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party asserting its existence.” (citing DaimlerChrysler Corp. v.