Case law

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

Quinn Construction, Inc. v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.

263 F.R.D. 190 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2009

The district court concluded that “in this case that it is the attorney work product-qualified immunity which must give way” and required production of the documents. Id. … As discussed elsewhere in this opinion, however, the Court finds that Farooqi’s own testimony in his deposition and his declaration provides sufficient evidence to establish that Farooqi considered the Warner Report in forming

THORPE v. TOWNSHIP OF SALISBURY, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2023

C.S.A. § 2310 (The “Commonwealth, and its officials and employees acting within the scope of their duties, shall continue to enjoy sovereign immunity and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General … Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.”); 2 Pa.

Bogart v. Phase II Pasta MacHines, Inc.

817 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1993

Phase II’s business operations were clearly a continuation of Pasta-Mat’s. Phase II imported and sold pasta machines, affixing to them its own distributor labels. … Webb Industries Corp., 951 F.2d 544, 548-49 (3d Cir.1991) (successor has no duty to warn predecessor’s customers absent its own established relationship with them). 4 .

Jones v. Amerihealth Caritas

95 F. Supp. 3d 807 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2015

However, many courts of appeals have found internal complaints qualify as protected activity. See, e.g., Lambert v. … Id. at 112 (“Congress could limit these damages, but the 1977 amendment does away with the old limitations without establishing new ones.”).

GOK v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2023

Gok lacked standing to assert criminal violations; (2) many of the defendants were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, or were shielded by absolute, qualified, or judicial immunity; and (3) to the extent that … Gok has not established that she is entitled to relief under Ruie 60(b)(3), thus the Court will deny Ms. Gok’s motion for reconsideration. II.

CAHILL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2026

The tactics here are too attenuated and indirect to qualify as affirmative acts. … Even if he had established a plausible constitutional violation, Cahill does not allege facts which could establish a claim against the City.

United States v. Camiel

503 F. Supp. 769 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 1980

I believe that there is language found in both the Act and the opinion clearly showing a presumption and expectation that per diem employees do some work for the General Assembly. … In the Brown decision, the Third Circuit first observed that Tarnopol did not establish any per se rule regarding routine business mailings but simply reiterated the established view that mailings which are too remote from

Morelli v. Tiffany & Co.

186 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2002

Their conduct at most may have been negligent, but it clearly was neither in bad faith nor intentional wrongdoing. … It is generally established that inadvertent and immaterial misstatements on an application do not invalidate a copy *566 right registration. See 2 Melvin B.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Steffen

948 F. Supp. 2d 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2013

[Defendants through Nationwide Insurance Company destroyed evidence”); id. at 10 (“Nationwide was clearly acting as an agent for the defendant [sic]”); id. … At the hearing, the Steffens also conceded that Kersey was "qualified” as a fire origin and cause expert, April 10, 2013 Tr. 7:24-8:6, thus there is similarly no dispute that the preamble to Rule 702 is satisfied here.

United States v. Kessler

63 F. Supp. 964 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1945

On cross-examination he qualified this statement to some extent, although he did not expressly retract it. His entire testimony was somewhat contradictory and unclear. … If he could, his testimony, that there were no packages of cigars in it, was competent to establish that point.

Teitelbaum v. Chater

949 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1996

Teitelbaum’s application for DIB was denied initially and upon reconsideration. 1 The Administrative Law Judge con- *1208 eluded that Teitelbaum had not established any disability prior to the date she was last insured, and … Railroad Retirement Bd., 625 F.2d 486, 489 (3d Cir.1980) (“[Welfare benefits] are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.”); Ross v.

Atchison v. Sears

666 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2009

Following a qualified absence, an employee is entitled to be reinstated to his or her former position or an equivalent position with equal pay, benefits, and other conditions of employment. Id. § 2614(a)(1). … He signed an “All-In-One Acknowledgment Form” which clearly stated: I understand as an associate of SHIPS I am employed under the Employment-Ab-Will doctrine....

FATA V. YOUNG

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2026

Section 1915 accords judges “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless[,]” including claims that describe “fantastic … A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v.

BLAKE v. MALETZ

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2025

The same immunity would apply to Judge Barrett, the presiding judge over Blake’s case. … to absolute judicial immunity.

JEFFERIES v. PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2023

by procedural due process, ‘a person clearly must... have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.’” Robb, 733 F.2d at 292 (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)). … Discrimination “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under either Title VII or the PHRA, a plaintiff must show that (1) she belongs to a protected class, (2) she was qualified for the position, (3) she

McGuffey v. Brink's Inc.

558 F. Supp. 2d 565 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2008

To establish a prima facie case for age discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas test, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is over forty years of age; (2) he was qualified for the position in question; (3) he suffered … The Third Circuit clearly states that the age difference must be sufficient to create an inference of age discrimination and that a one year difference is insufficient. See Gray v.

Provident National Bank v. United States

325 F. Supp. 1187 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 1971

The present case is clearly in the latter category. The dominant purpose of the trust, quite obviously, is the care and ornamentation of the family mausoleum. … However, notwithstanding the broad language of the statute, plaintiff properly concedes that the payments must be made to a beneficiary of the trust in order to qualify for deduction as distributions.

McKnight v. School District of Philadelphia

171 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2001

[to] believe that the acts which resulted in [his] termination amounted to gross misconduct, [and] it was not clearly established that ... … to determining "qualifying events” and “gross misconduct” under 29 U.S.C. section 1161 (a) of COBRA.