Case law

Brittingham v. Weinberger

408 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1976

This burden arose when plaintiff established that she was disabled from engaging in her former occupation as a meat cook. Barats v. Weinberger, 383 F.Supp. 276, 285-286 (E.D.Pa. 1974). … Statements of the applicant, including his own description of his impairment (symptoms) are, alone, insufficient to establish the presence of a physical or mental impairment,” 3 .

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.

WILCOX v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2024

Under that system, “[a] qualifying employee has the right to a hearing before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)” after being subject to removal, suspension of more than 14 days, reduction in grade or pay, or furlough … Cir. 2005).5 While Wilcox seems to dispute the very legitimacy of the concept of sovereign immunity (see Pls’ Resp. at 3–6), it is well established that “the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as

In Re Tug Management Corporation

330 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 1971

This it clearly has not done. … in abuse of the corporate fiction and the immunity that it carries. * * *" Coryell v.

Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia

589 F. Supp. 961 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1984

The language of § 1452b, however, clearly is not phrased in right-creating terms. … The statute merely states that “the Secretary is authorized” to make rehabilitation loans to qualified owners and tenants of property. 42 U.S.C. § 1452b(a).

INGRAM, III v. ABINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2025

Williams that he was battling cancer, among other health issues, which resulted in a compromised immune system, and which would require a reasonable accommodation in the form of unpaid leave. (Id.) … At the summary judgment stage, this means Plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to show: (1) that she is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential

Taylor v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

310 F. Supp. 2d 727 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2004

It should be noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court qualified its use of the term “doctrine,” by stating “[w]hether res ipsa lo-quitur, a phrase which means no more than 'the things speaks for itself,’ may appropriately … Although plaintiff states that “circumstantial evidence clearly indicates that [Myrick] had no suicidal ideations nor plans to kill himself,” plaintiff brought forth no such circumstantial evidence beyond this bald statement

Fort Washington Resources, Inc. v. Tannen

846 F. Supp. 354 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1994

Each party still bears the initial burden of establishing a lack of genuine issue of material fact. Id. … Second, they argue that -any allegations of incompetence and that defendant committed conversion are covered by a qualified business privilege.

Landy v. United States

101 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 1951

Therefore, any testimony he gave as to what took place before he came on the scene was clearly hearsay as far as establishing how the accident happened, although it may have been admissible to show that the vessel’s officers … It is libellant’s contention that since Flax, the officer most qualified to decide whether a doctor would be needed, was on board immediately following the accident, the other officers were negligent in failing to report

EMRIT v. COMBS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2024

It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish diversity of citizenship, see Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 72 (1939); Quaker State Dyeing & Finishing Co., Inc. v. … There is no rebuttable presumption of diversity; rather, it is Emrit’s burden to establish that this Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over his case.

Kay v. Thrift and Profit Sharing Plan

780 F. Supp. 1447 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1991

In addition, ERISA provides that certain persons qualify as plan fiduciaries by being “named fiduciaries” under a plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1102 (a). … Consequently, I shall establish a schedule for full briefing of the attorney fees issue. III.

Northeast Women's Center, Inc. v. McMonagle

665 F. Supp. 1147 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1987

The issues before Judge Takiff are clearly distinct from those presented here. … Due to the features of the property involved, there are no clearly determinable limits to set as barriers for protest activities.

Brunson Communications, Inc. v. Arbitron, Inc.

266 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2003

Hosp., 918 F.2d 411, 417 (3d Cir.1990) (affirming dismissal of negligence claim because hospital owed prospective employee no duty to ascertain whether he was fully qualified for position offered). … Such an outstanding burden is clearly inappropriate and a danger to our economic system ...

Fickinger v. C.I. Planning Corp.

646 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1986

In the event the maximum allowable recovery of all qualified claimants exceeded the net Settlement Fund, qualified applicants were to receive a pro rata share. … For example, the measure of recovery per share could have been a sum certain divided by the number of qualifying shares less court awarded fees and costs.

Garcia v. United States

913 F. Supp. 905 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1996

While we agreed that the United States had not waived its immunity with respect to constitutional tort claims under the FTCA, we nonetheless concluded that the FTCA “clearly does waive that sovereign immunity for claims based … Clearly some latitude must be given. “The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities.

Askew v. Trustees of the General Assembly of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Aposolic Faith, Inc.

644 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2009

Only through Askew’s membership in the Church is he qualified to bring a derivative action on behalf of the Church. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.1. … To hold that the First Amendment bars Askew’s claims on this record would immunize every nonprofit corporation with a religious purpose from breach of fiduciary suits by a representative of the beneficiary class and prevent

SIMMONS

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

immunity. … App’x 150, 152 (3d Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where the “defendants’ involvement, if any, was clearly outside the statute of limitations”). IV.

George A. Ex Rel. Tameka A. v. Wallingford Swarthmore School District

655 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2009

His disability qualifies him for special education services under the IDEA. Ricky requires intensive language remediation and needs the daily support of a teacher of the deaf. … Furthermore, regardless of WSSD’s relationship with Ricky, the IDEA clearly demands that a child stay-put pending administrative proceedings. The focus of the law is on the educational placement of the child.

SYDER v. PHILADELPHIA INDUSTRIAL CORRECTIONAL CENTER (PICC)

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2023

creating a cause of action if the injury were caused by a person not protected by immunity, and (2) the claim falls within one of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity in Section 8542(b) of the [Tort Claims … “In other words, custom may be established by proving knowledge of, and acquiescence to, a practice.” Fletcher v.

In re Times Pub. Co.

183 F. 603 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1910

Clearly one of the “conditions” was that the new issue should also he a first mortgage, and it could not be a first mortgage until all the old bonds had been surrendered for exchange. … Beyer saw the agreement, but in my opinion it still falls short of establishing an estoppel.