Case law

Terry v. McNeil-PPC, Inc.

198 F. Supp. 3d 446 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2016

However, this does not mean that the “best qualified” expert must testify. “[W]itnesses may be competent to testify as experts even though they may not, in the court’s eyes, be the ‘best’ qualified.” Holbrook v. … Daubert merely requires that the expert testimony be both relevant and reliable; and Daubert clearly vests the district courts with discretion to determine the admissibility of expert testimony.

ORAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 2026

A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. … These claims are barred by judicial immunity.

Larsen v. International Business Machines Corp.

87 F.R.D. 602 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1980

Clearly, Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to the present situation. … Wood, a chemical engineer, was not qualified as a safety or safety design expert. Thereafter, the Court sustained Plaintiff’s objection and refused to permit Mr.

Kemether v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n

15 F. Supp. 2d 740 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1998

THE DELCO CHAPTER’S RELATIONSHIP TO PIAA Plaintiff does not clearly describe the relationship she seeks to establish between PIAA and Delco Chapter, sometimes referring to “PIAA’s Delco Chapter” (Pl.’s Mem. Summ. … The record does not suffice to clearly establish that jurisdiction exists over PIAA as a Title VII employer.

In re Penn Central Transportation Co.

347 F. Supp. 1354 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1972

The essence of the Trustees’ present argument seems to be the assertion that, since the bonding company quite clearly is not liable on its bond, this Court should be the tribunal to say so. … The New York courts are certainly better qualified than this Court to determine the issues of state law and state appellate procedure involved.

Kynett v. United States

201 F. Supp. 609 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1962

Clearly a taxpayer has no vested interest in the tax law as it exists at any particular time. … That assumes, of course, that had she waited she would have followed the form clearly set forth in the 1951 Act.

Rudinger v. Insurance Data Processing, Inc.

778 F. Supp. 1334 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1991

Defendants also state Rudinger fails to establish materiality, but they merge this argument with scienter. … I think the misrepresentations allegedly presented to Rudinger are not so clearly immaterial as to warrant summary judgment in defendants’ favor. 3 .

Home Insurance v. Law Offices of Jonathan DeYoung, P.C.

32 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1998

However, “[e]x-clusions from coverage contained in an insurance policy will be effective against an insured if they are clearly worded and conspicuously displayed, irrespective of whether the insured read the limitations … Naming “Estate of Jonathan DeYoung, Deceased” as a defendant in an action qualifies as a claim under the policy.

McKnight v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

438 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1977

The cases cited by plaintiff are in accord with the principle established by the majority in Bishop. … No qualified person shall be laid off if a transfer to another job, division or department within the transportation system can be arranged. (c) Pensions and Retirement. . . . ” (Emphasis added.) 6 .

United States Ex Rel. Boyance v. Myers

270 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1967

Michaels of Cornwells Heights, County and State aforesaid, who being duly qualified, according to law, deposes and says that on or about the 13th day of July. 1961, the following goods and chattels, to wit: Blank Checks, … People of State of California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 , 62 S.Ct. 280, 290 , 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941), or those personal immunities which are “ ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental

ALBURG v. JONES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2021

The court ruled that the constable and local police later called to the scene were not entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 violation because they participated in a property deprivation despite established circuit … Driving on a suspended license would qualify as such a minor offense. Therefore, the false imprisonment claims against Officer Kearney, Detective Lt.

BREWER v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2021

While Brewer does not specify whether Donato was private retained or court appointed to be Brewer’s attorney, under either scenario, Donato would not qualify as a “state actor” under § 1983. … This limitation is based on the well- established principle that municipalities “are not vicariously liable under § 1983 for their employees’ actions.”

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

102 F. Supp. 3d 688 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 2015

(explaining that “nu *701 merous courts have held that [Hepatitis C] alone”, absent a demonstration of how it limits a major life activity is not enough to qualify as a disability); Shultz v. … But the Supreme Court has. clearly held that § 601 of Title VI prohibits,.only intentional discrimination, and there is no private right of action to enforce disparate impact regulations promulgated under § 602 of Title VI

Louisiana Forestry Ass'n v. Solis

889 F. Supp. 2d 711 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2012

The H-2B visa program permits employers to recruit unskilled laborers from abroad to fill positions that no qualified United States worker will accept. … H-2B visas are issued by the DHS, upon the application of a qualifying employer.

Tysenn v. Johns-Manville Corp.

517 F. Supp. 1290 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1981

Tysenn relies upon a judicially created exception to the Compensation Act established in Readinger v. … In Readinger , the court held that an employer who physically assaulted and struck an employee could not avail itself of the immunity from suit created by the Compensation Act, because the Act applied only to accidental injury

LeGare v. University of Pennsylvania Medical School

488 F. Supp. 1250 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1980

First, in February 1976 plaintiff was bypassed in favor of a white woman for promotion to the position of “Dean’s Assistant”, although LeGare was qualified for the job. … Other courts have awarded defendants attorney’s fees under similar circumstances, e. g, where “a plaintiff proceeds on a clearly frivolous legal basis, such as suing a private corporation under § 1983 without any contentions

Schwartz v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.

374 F. Supp. 564 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1974

Such cooperation falls clearly within the McCarran-Ferguson Act exemption. … As a result, the essential facts necessary to support this claim of immunity have not as yet been pleaded,.

United States v. Trinh

166 F. Supp. 2d 1042 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2001

Moreover, “[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. … The adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” Tr. of Hr’g at 54.

Solis v. Koresko

884 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2012

employer clearly foresees the need to make regular payments to survivors on an ongoing basis.” … Neither ERISA nor the Department of Labor regulations clearly define the term “plan assets.”

Cruz Ex Rel. Cruz v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n

157 F. Supp. 2d 485 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2001

The term “qualified individual with a disability” is defined at § 12131(2) as follows: The term “qualified individual with a disability” means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications … Balancing of the interests here is clearly in favor of plaintiff. He is entitled to the benefits of the ADA. Denying him the relief he is entitled to under law is not in the public interest.