Case law

Dille Family Trust v. Nowlan Family Trust

276 F. Supp. 3d 412 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2017

There is little question that Rovin is qualified to testify as an expert in the history of Buck Rogers. … Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot establish the third element because it cannot prove that Defendant’s challenged use took place after BUCK ROGERS became a famous mark; Because the issue of fame is clearly

Philadelphia Orchestra Ass'n v. Walt Disney Co.

821 F. Supp. 341 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1993

Clearly the record does not support joint authorship but a contrary conclusion. … The plaintiff has not established that Disney represented *351 that the Orchestra endorsed the home video.

Pitrone v. Mercadante

420 F. Supp. 1384 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1976

[and] would so act upon even the slightest provocation.” 1 In addition, the complaint also seems to base the township’s liability on theories of negligence (in failing to establish and enforce guidelines for the use of deadly … In Bivens the court found a cause of action based on the Fourth Amendment in a situation where, absent the implication of such relief, the plaintiff would have had no federal 11 remedy for the violation of a clearly established

In re Solomon

40 F. Supp. 62 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1941

The facts in this case are stated clearly and succinctly by the referee in his opinion as follows: “While one Anthony Narkiewicz and Waleryz Narkiewicz, his wife, owned title to premises 2052 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia … He certainly cannot be permitted to claim both under and against the same deed; to insist upon its efficacy to confer a benefit and repudiate a burden with which it has qualified it; to affirm a part and reject a part.

Hayfield v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

168 F. Supp. 2d 436 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2001

The Supreme Court’s holding in Zahn , and Meritcare’s reaffirming of Zahn , do establish clearly, among other things, that the Third Circuit will not permit plaintiffs with separate and distinct claims under the jurisdictional … controversy for the purpose of establishing *455 federal diversity jurisdiction.

DAVISTON JR v. HOFFNER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2023

Daviston appears to concede that the transaction was structured as a straw purchase by another individual named John Tompkins, Jr. since AS did not have sufficient credit scores or work history to qualify for a mortgage … The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived that immunity. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(b).

Loucas v. Cunningham (In re Cunningham)

541 B.R. 792 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2015

By statute, a post-petition state judgment is not binding on the bankruptcy court to establish the amount of a debt for bankruptcy purposes. … In reviewing these findings of fact by the bankruptcy judge, I find that none are clearly erroneous.

Hicks v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc.

503 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1980

Clearly, if one is not an alcoholic, he does not qualify, nor should be labeled as, an alcoholic. Plaintiff denied alcoholism. … In order to establish that a discharge decision violates either Title VII or 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , plaintiff must establish a racial motive for the discharge. 4.

Lauren G. ex rel. Scott G. v. West Chester Area School District

906 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2012

student] was disabled if they can establish a denial of a FAPE.”). (1) he is “disabled” as defined by the Act; (2) he is “otherwise qualified” to participate in school activities; (3) the school or the board of education … Clearly, King George provided “significant learning” and conferred meaningful” benefit to Lauren.

MOSKOWITZ v. NESHAMINY SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2022

L Essential Job Functions In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show (1) a disability under the ADA, (2) that the plaintiff is otherwise qualified to perform … Moskowitz does not establish that he is a qualified individual or that he requested an accommodation, then he also cannot establish a prima facie claim for retaliation.

United States v. Gibbs

125 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2000

The holding in Apprendi was not dictated by precedent and clearly imposes a new obligation on the Government. … However, “[a] rule that qualifies under this exception must not only improve accuracy, but also alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Sawyer v.

Giovanni v. United States Department of the Navy

263 F. Supp. 3d 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2017

Indeed, the Durfey court acknowledged that “one of the goals” of a cleanup is “establishing the effects on and dangers to human health” posed by the CERCLA site. 59 F.3d at 126 . … Because the Court agrees with the Navy’s first argument that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Giovannis’s claims, see infra Part II, the Court need not address the Navy's immunity argument; .

Quagliarello v. Dewees

802 F. Supp. 2d 620 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2011

Officer Dewees’s State of Mind Defendants argue that Signorelli is not qualified to testify about Officer Dewees’s state of mind. … (metallurgy and FAA experts were not qualified to testify as to the state of mind of defendant’s employees).

Fuller v. Harding

699 F. Supp. 64 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 1988

The standard for addressing these constitutional limitations were established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). … It is also obvious that defendant Harding, through this contact, has not attempted to purposely avail himself of the privileges and immunities of the Commonwealth.

Culpepper-Smith v. United States

50 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1999

Looking at the entire litigation in these terms, plaintiff is clearly the prevailing party. … However, as established by Judge McGlynn’s decision in its favor, the government clearly was substantially justified in opposing these claims. 2 Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to fees and costs attributable to her

Marshall v. Sisters of Holy Family of Nazareth

399 F. Supp. 2d 597 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2005

She must then show that: (1) her son is an individual with a disability under the Act; (2) is “otherwise qualified” for the program sought, or would be qualified if the defen *602 dant made reasonable modifications to the … In these circumstances, the record shows quite clearly that Nazareth learned of Jack’s purported disability (his as-yet untreated ADHD) after it decided not to re-enroll him.

MITCHELL v. ROBINSON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2025

Claims Barred by Immunity 1. … Mitchell’s allegations about the defendant judges involve actions taken in their judicial capacity in cases over which they clearly had jurisdiction.

Sabulsky v. Schweiker

570 F. Supp. 1085 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 1983

Although the ALJ made a valiant effort to establish that the condition is the result of smoking, the record clearly establishes that the plaintiff has never smoked. … Although qualified as a draftsman, he has no tools in his home with which to perform such work even if there were an employer who had available assignments which he could perform in the home. (TR 45).

FARBER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2025

Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, “‘a finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction … These conclusions are far from “clearly erroneous.”

HAMMOND v. ACERNO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2025

entitled to qualified immunity for his participation in [plaintiff’s] prosecution.”); Dorsey v. Burns, No. CV 22-431(RMB-EAP), 2024 WL 3964254, at *3 (D.N.J. … Aug. 28, 2024) (finding it need not resolve defendants’ qualified immunity argument because the court had already declined to imply a new Bivens cause of action).