Case law

Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Borough of Norristown

400 F. Supp. 2d 790 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2005

Evidence that may prove insufficient to establish guilt at trial may still be sufficient to find the arrest occurred within the bounds of the law. Henry v. … Nor do they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 3 . Pennsylvania's recklessly endangering another person statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705, states: Recklessly endangering another person.

A.P. v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.

294 F. Supp. 3d 406 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2018

A school district is obligated to provide FAPE only to qualified students who reside in the school district. Conversely, a school district *410 has no obligation to provide FAPE to ineligible non-residents. … A disabled child's residency must be established before a school district is obligated to provide him FAPE.

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.

Edmonson v. Lincoln National Life Insurance

777 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2011

Plaintiffs claim neither “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” nor is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Gould Elecs. Inc. v. … , 407 F.3d at 1133 (defendants, who “were signatories in practice as well as name” of the account that held the plan funds, had control over plan assets and qualified as fiduciaries).

Scottsdale Insurance v. RSE Inc.

303 F.R.D. 234 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2014

But as Judge Baylson noted, some recent cases may appear to undermine Treesdale as they establish that financial interests may qualify as legally protected interests for standing purposes. Id.; see Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. … First, Treesdale speaks clearly on the nature of interests recognized by Rule 19(a)(1)(B), whereas Rauscher’s comments on Rule 19 are dicta and irrelevant to the question of whether financial interests satisfy Rule 19(a)(

Washington-Pope v. City of Philadelphia

979 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2013

immunity, id. at 15. … are exonerated on the basis of qualified immunity, because they were merely negligent, or for other failure of proof.”

Wolk v. Teledyne Industries, Inc.

475 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2007

fails to establish general personal jurisdiction. … Felix, 250 Pa.Super. 262 , 378 A.2d 927, 930 (1977) (holding that reporting of judicial proceedings is accorded only a “qualified immunity” in Pennsylvania); see also Sciandra 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.

Bedford v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Trans. Authoirty

867 F. Supp. 288 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1994

Plaintiff’s discharge is clearly an adverse employment action. … City of Compton, 663 F.Supp. 786, 792 (C.D.Ca.1987) (to apply intracorporate conspiracy exception to governmental entities to bar § 1985(3) claims could effectively immunize some official discriminatory conduct).

Sanders v. City of Philadelphia

513 F. Supp. 2d 439 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2007

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Even if Lovett could not leave the wagon, a ten minute ride in the back of a patrol wagon does not qualify as a “substantial curtailment over an individual’s freedom.”

SHELTON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2021

To prevail at the motion to dismiss stage, the prosecutor must demonstrate that “the conduct triggering absolute immunity ‘clearly appear[s] on the face of the complaint.” Weimer, 972 F.3d at 187 (quoting Fogle v. … Id. at 443.12 Explaining how it reached this conclusion, the Supreme Court pointed out that the trial prosecutors and their supervisors were clearly immune for their direct actions in the 12 See also Van de Kamp, 555

Sprinturf, Inc. v. Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc.

277 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2003

However, the prior consideration of references does not automatically establish the validity of a patent. See Novo Nordisk v. … The movant must clearly show “immediate irreparable harm,” rather than a risk of harm. Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 92 (3d Cir.1992).

Paterno v. Pennsylvania State University

149 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2016

Being well-qualified, Mr. Paterno sought other employment either as a head football coach or a media commentator. Id. at ¶¶ 275-76. … The amended complaint does not establish a claim for the deprivation of a liberty interest in reputation.

ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc.

198 F. Supp. 2d 598 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2002

So they’re clearly on notice that they will be — to use these systems they’ve got to keep buying tags. And in response, many customers ask for a contract that establishes the price of that. Hr’g Tr., 3/8/02, at 9-10. … Schade, 455 Pa.Super. 414, 421 , 688 A.2d 715, 719 (1997) (explaining that lost profits are difficult to establish with “mathematical certainty”).

JOHNSON v. CLARK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2024

First, Johnson does not allege that he is a qualified individual with a disability. … There are ten instances in which sovereign immunity has been waived by statute.

DeCicco v. Mid-Atlantic Healthcare, LLC

275 F. Supp. 3d 546 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2017

him; ' (3) [he] was qualified for the position in question; and (4) [he] was ultimately replaced by another employee who was sufficiently younger to support an inference of discriminatory animus.” … Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and in the absence of clear guidance from the Third Circuit, I cannot conclude as a matter of law that the circumstances comprising Plaintiffs interference claim are “so clearly

Garrett v. Bamford

394 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 1975

No precedent has been cited establishing that the state assessment authorities and the courts will not squarely meet and resolve the issues raised without federal intervention. … However, the instant case is clearly distinguishable.

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital

784 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1992

The Third Circuit, further, determined that ¶ 14 clearly referred to the Appendix A obligations as ‘orders of the Court,’ not ethical commands. Id. at 319-20. … This Court determines, therefore, that defendant Commonwealth has established no basis in equity or fairness to support this motion.

Land Title Bank & Trust Co. v. Ward

20 F. Supp. 810 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1937

Bergson, 307 Pa. 44 , 159 A. 32 ) and has been established by statute (Act Pa. April 16, 1845, P.L. 495). … At least, as we have said, it does not clearly appear in the statement of claim and cannot be taken as admitted.

Sala v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

120 F.R.D. 494 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1988

Plaintiff must further establish that the action falls within one of the three categories proscribed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b). … Moreover, the issue of causation in this case can similarly be established on a class wide basis.