Case law

Roach v. SCI Graterford Medical Dept.

398 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2005

“Allegations of ‘inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care’ or ‘negligent ... diagnosis’ fail to establish the requisite culpable state of mind.” Wilson v. … This process is also clearly described in the "Inmate Handbook" provided to the Court by plaintiff. (PL's Br. at App. E.) 3 . Plaintiff contends that his letter to Mr.

In re United States

413 F. Supp. 1321 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1976

At this point in the grand jury proceedings, there has been testimony from several witnesses; the Government expects to grant immunity to others, and also anticipates that indictments will be returned; however, the Government … The Lochiatto court was faced with a situation virtually identical to that in Pérsico : grand jury witnesses who had been granted immunity were held in contempt after refusing to answer questions which they asserted were

Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia

400 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1975

established by the state courts. … Justices Brandéis and Holmes dissented on the grounds that the exemption was not clearly unreasonable nor arbitrary.

Delaware County Memorial Hospital v. Sullivan

836 F. Supp. 238 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1991

DCMH had no malpractice insurance for the injuries suffered by the patients born in 1957 and 1959 because charitable institutions were then immune from liability. … That section “established the [PRRB] as the forum of first resort, and requires exhaustion of one’s remedies there before court review is appropriate.” Id.

In re Tylenol (Acetaminophen) Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation

181 F. Supp. 3d 278 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2016

The doctrine also includes a "sham exception” which provides that “activity ‘ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action' does not qualify for Noerr immunity if it ‘is a mere sham to cover... an attempt to … Immunity from liability is necessary so as not to chill the exercise of that right.”); Congregation Anshei Roosevelt v.

SPONE v. REISS

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

Should Plaintiff amend her Complaint, DA Weintraub is invited to renew any claims of qualified immunity. … However, Count II is currently too vaguely pleaded for this Court to attempt a qualified immunity analysis.

United States ex rel. Kimbrough v. Rundle

293 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1968

The relevant evidence presented at this hearing clearly supports the relator’s contention that he was tried without the effective assistance of counsel. … The relator contends that such late appointment establishes that his trial was inherently prejudicial.

Gbossou v. United States

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2025

The plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that a court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case. See id. … Further, the presented claim must contain a clearly defined, or “sum certain,” request for monetary damages related to the injury. 28 CFR § 14.2.

YOUST v. ROTH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2023

The requirements for Younger abstention are clearly met in this case. … He asserts that the Mayor’s response to him was “clearly an act to conspire” and conceal wrongdoing on behalf of the police. (Id. at 148.)

CHADWICK v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

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

“To establish a prima facie case of discrimination [under the ADA1], a plaintiff must show (1) that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable … Therefore, Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of disability discrimination because he cannot show that he was otherwise qualified in July of 2020.

Burtch v. Ganz

405 B.R. 148 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2009

Here, this Court’s standard of review is whether the facts found by Judge Fox are clearly erroneous. … The plaintiff has the burden of establishing the elements of the discovery rule. Cochran, 666 A.2d at 249 .

Mueller Brass Co. v. Reading Industries, Inc.

352 F. Supp. 1357 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1972

Clearly all that was claimed in each of the four claims of the patent in suit was old and the claims are therefore invalid. … ” is not qualified except that it “arose without any deceptive intention” on the part of the applicant or applicants as the case may be.

Rossi v. Schlarbaum

600 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2009

Schlarbaum clearly applied to Ms. Rossi as Mrs. Schlarbaum mentioned Ms. Rossi in the statements. (Id.) With respect to the fourth element, Ms. Villareal clearly understood that the statements had a defamatory meaning. … Schlarbaum is sufficient evidence at the summary judgment stage to establish general damages. (Lee Dep. 19:22-20:11.)

Guest v. Fitzpatrick

409 F. Supp. 818 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1976

The public interest underlying Act No. 94 clearly justifies any incursions it makes into the contract rights of the parties here. In Fornaris v. … The absence of any demand for damages requires that the Pennsylvania defendants’ claims for immunity under the Eleventh Amendment be rejected. See Edelman v.

Laubach v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co.

686 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1988

Section 501(a)(1) of the Deregulation Act exempts from state usury law any qualified loan by a qualified lender. … As I stated above, once a violation of the Act is established, strict liability attaches.

Carbonaro v. Reeher

392 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1975

This statement was clearly dictum and is not dispositive of the issue here. 3 . … These sections comprise the “Veterans’ Education Act of 1971” and vest in PHEAA the discretion to award scholarships to “qualified” veterans. 6 .

Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co.

968 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1997

In Sheridan^ the court held that to establish a prima facie Title VII claim of discriminatory discharge a plaintiff must show (1) that she is a member of the protected class, (2) she was qualified for that position, (3) she … To establish a prima facie claim of unlawful discrimination in violation of the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she is qualified, with or without reasonable

Kosierowski v. Allstate Insurance

51 F. Supp. 2d 583 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1999

Nonetheless, the investigatory conduct cannot qualify as bad faith. … Her claims for damages were inconclusive at best and contradictory at worst, and her own attorney did not always communicate promptly and clearly.

Kraus v. Bell Atlantic Corp.

716 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 17, 1989

These differences clearly establish that neither the AC, VM, nor the MSS systems literally infringe on the Kraus patent. … In conclusion, the evidence clearly establishes that defendant did not infringe upon plaintiff’s patent.

White Ex Rel. Heidnik v. Horn

54 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 1999

The evidence must demonstrate either that the decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” or that it “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” … This presumption can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that the decision below “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” or “was based on an unreasonable