Case law

Sulaiman v. Attorney General

212 F. Supp. 2d 413 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2002

It applied the correct standard, holding “the respondent did not meet his burden of proof by establishing that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Nigeria.” … As a final note, because the issues in this case are straightforward and capable of resolution on the record, and because petitioner’s claim is clearly non-meritorious, the Court will deny petitioner’s motion for the appointment

PAPPAGALLO v. Redco Corp. f/k/a Crane Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2025

A defendant cannot claim that it acted for a federal officer and is entitled to federal immunity in that scenario. . . … Defendants’ Notice of Removal details the rigorous process for ensuring that its products were qualified and approved to be purchased by the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard.

Gordon v. Lowell

95 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2000

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 … Clearly, Plaintiffs had knowledge of the alleged injuries in 1995, and could have filed the present case no later than two years thereafter.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Penn Central Co.

450 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1978

If it did so “create” the misrepresentations, the defendants’ conduct clearly would amount to far more than “mere internal mismanagement”. … We have found that defendants’ alleged conduct in violation of the securities laws is not immunized from liability by being part of a scheme of corporate mismanagement, elements of which may be actionable under state law.

AFL PHILADELPHIA LLC v. Krause

639 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2009

whether an unregistered mark qualifies for protection under Section 43(a). … In the instant case, Defendant is the most clearly identifiable party to bring this enforcement action.

W.H. v. Schuykill Valley School District

954 F. Supp. 2d 315 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2013

Another test that spring revealed more hearing loss, and the audiologist made several recommendations for accommodating C.H., including minimizing background noise and using clearly written and spoken communications. … Neither the IDEA, its implementing regulations, nor the applicable Pennsylvania regulations, establish a deadline by which children who are suspected of having a qualifying disability must be identified and evaluated.

Coleman v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.

318 F.R.D. 275 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2016

Plaintiffs assert that they, and the class they seek to represent, qualified for these discounts. … Mere evidence of a statement of false fact “is clearly insufficient to prove that the defendants knew that they were involved in a fraudulent scheme.” United States v. Pearlstein, 576 F,2d 531, 543 (3d Cir.1978).

Satterfield v. Johnson

322 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2004

Read together, the first four prongs of Holloway clearly relate to the first prong in Strickland and the fifth prong of Holloway clearly relates to the second prong of Strickland . … Thus, the strategy utilized by defense counsel did not immunize the exculpatory evidence from attack.

BERG v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2024

But if either of the first two factors is not established, preliminary relief must be denied. … Jackson, 595 U.S. 30, 39 (2021) (“Generally, States are immune from suit under the terms of the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” (citing Alden v.

Cooper v. Bowen

655 F. Supp. 104 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1986

This provision clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a “final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing.” Califano v. … Rankin qualified for a waiver of this overpayment of benefits and the issue of whether the Administration correctly determined that Mr. Rankin’s disability had ceased in November, 1977. The Administration afforded Mr.

Berg v. Obama

574 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2008

Failure to establish any of the elements leaves the plaintiff without standing. Plaintiff does not, and we believe cannot, establish an injury in fact. … Fowler, 152 F.3d 974, 990 (D.C.Cir.1998) (“If a party must produce the nation’s 'uncontested choice’ for President of the United State to qualify as a state actor, the Democratic (or Republican) Party plainly does not qualify

United States v. Schiffer

836 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1993

The evidence accumulated at trial clearly establishes the contrary. … Moreover, expert testimony introduced at trial clearly established that defendant obtained Romanian citizenship derivatively through his father. (Findings of Fact, 5.)

Carter v. Mid-Atlantic Healthcare, LLC

228 F. Supp. 3d 495 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2017

A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of age discrimination by demonstrating that “(1) she is forty years of age or older: (2) the defendant took an adverse employment action against her: (3) she was qualified for the … Mid-Atlantic points out that a failure to successfully fill one’s job responsibilities is clearly a legitimate reason for termination, and cites to the Third Circuit’s decision in Wooler v.

In Re Lewis Jones, Inc.

369 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1973

The record in these proceedings clearly establishes that the purchaser would be substantially harmed if the injunction is granted. … Thus, the order of the Bankruptcy Judge from which no petition for review is taken is not only final, it is res adjudicata and immune from collateral attack. Mavity v.

AFRASIABIPOUR v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2020

“PennDOT is clearly a state agency and thus eligible for Eleventh Amendment protection.” Fitzpatrick v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 40 F. Supp. 2d 631, 634 (E.D. … Prima Facie Case of National Origin and Racial Discrimination “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that he: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified

K.C. Ex Rel. Her Parents v. Nazareth Area School District

806 F. Supp. 2d 806 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2011

Accordingly, the record clearly establishes that K.C. received appropriate executive function coaching for her particular needs even though it was not provided in the form Plaintiffs would have preferred. … Based on the aforementioned, the evidence clearly establishes that proper transition services were provided. Even *826 though K.C. was not provided every service her Parents or Dr.

Planned Parenthood Association v. Fitzpatrick

401 F. Supp. 554 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 1975

The Supreme Court’s analysis in Roe clearly states that a woman has a qualified, though not absolute, right to decide to have an abortion. … The woman’s decision is qualified to the extent that there must be a balancing of her fundamental right of privacy with other important and legitimate interests at specified compelling points.

Denty v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

907 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 1995

These courts applied the well-established presumption against extraterritorial application of federal law. See EEOC v. … England and Australia clearly have strong interests in regulating the employment relations within their borders.

EASLEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2026

Because the officer was entitled to qualified immunity, despite assuming that a mate- rial issue of fact remained, summary judgment on the merits was not reached. Id. at 202. … quotation yet another case decided on qualified immunity.

Jordan v. Berman

758 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1991

This clearly is not a cognizable predicate offense. … The seemingly harsh consequences of this holding for an unwary citizen utilizing in good faith an apparently valid state procedure later held to be unconstitutional may be mitigated by the availability of a qualified immunity