Case law

EASLEY v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2024

“clearly was not fit to complete any surgery,” and “actually forgot what he was supposed to do.” (Id. ¶¶ 179-180, 184). … in which that immunity has been specifically waived are concerned. 42 Pa.

Tingley-Kelley v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

677 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2010

and there are almost always legitimate reasons for favoring one well-qualified applicant over another. … See Back, 365 F.3d at 122 (noting that defendant was not immune from plaintiffs allegations simply because in the year Back was hired, 85% of teachers at the school were women, and 71% of these women had children because

J. E. Brenneman Co. v. Schramm

473 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1979

This allegation in the complaint clearly indicates that the Administrator obtained from the grantee the “assurance” required by the regulation. … Morton : [A] mere “interest in a problem,” no matter how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is not sufficient by itself to render the organization “adversely affected” . 405 U.S. at 738

PHILLIPS v. WEINMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2025

In Younger, 401 U.S. 37, the United States Supreme Court “established a principle of abstention when federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding.” Yang v. … The Younger requirements are clearly met in this case for the claims against Weinman and the City of Reading.

VINES v. MARLER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2022

A misleading instruction from a prison official may qualify as a “misrepresentation” under Ross. Hardy v. Shaikh, 959 F. 3d 578, 587 (3d Cir. 2020). … Based on the records attached to the Second Kerr Affidavit, Plaintiff clearly knew the proper way to request an administrative remedy at the FDC, but did not do so in this case.

Cohen v. Uniroyal, Inc.

77 F.R.D. 685 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1977

Moreover, the common question test is clearly satisfied when a series of annual reports and other corporate financial statements uniformly misrepresent or fail to disclose certain items. … Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 508 F.2d 239, 247 (3d Cir. 1975): Adequate representation depends on two factors (a) the plaintiff’s attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation

Huff v. Dresher Hill Health & Rehabilitation Center

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

The Third Circuit has clearly stated that the denial of benefits is necessary to demonstrate an interference claim. … Here, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of actionable retaliation as she failed to produce any evidence that she invoked her right to “FMLA-qualifying leave” and that her termination

HILL

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

But this claim clearly arises from determinations made in Judge Lieberman’s judicial capacity where he unquestionably could exercise jurisdiction as a Pennsylvania Magisterial District Judge. See Figueroa v. … Moreover, Hill has not alleged any factual bases for establishing that the Warden was personally involved in the events that give rise to his claims, as would be required to state a claim against the Warden.

American Dredging Co. v. Calmar S. S. Corp.

121 F. Supp. 255 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1954

There is no doubt in my mind that the evidence clearly establishes that in no instance did any American Dredging Company employee place a lantern on even a single scow at a sufficient height above the deck of the scow so … Clearly, no ship of this size could be stopped within that distance, even had a full astern order been immediately given.

Fosnocht v. Demko

438 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2006

, as this clearly would be contrary to the well-pleaded complaint rule adopted by the federal courts. … Even a cursory examination of the rules governing removal and federal question jurisdiction would have revealed that the instant suit does not qualify for either.

In re Asbestos School Litigation

104 F.R.D. 422 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1984

Clearly, classwide disposition of at least some of the issues in this litigation, instead of case-by-case adjudication, would realize great savings in litigation costs. … Whether some type of equitable relief may be required in specific cases cannot at this stage of the litigation be clearly ascertained.

Horsch v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

94 F. Supp. 3d 665 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2015

[Fjurnishers are ‘neither qualified nor obligated to resolve’ matters that ‘turn[] on questions that can only be resolved by a court of law.’ ” Id. at 38 (quoting DeAndrade v. … “[A] dearth of authoritative guidance” makes it less likely that a party’s conduct was objectively unreasonable, but the absence of such authority does not “immunize” an actor from potential liability where the statute is

HENDERSON v. KARDOSH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2023

The custody decision is clearly a state court judicial function. It also appears that custody proceedings are ongoing and, presumably, will continue until Henderson’s children reach the age of majority. … These sections establish criminal liability for certain deprivations of civil rights and conspiracy to deprive civil rights.

Koresko v. United States

123 F. Supp. 3d 654 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2015

Koresko presented the REAL VEBA arrangement as a TOME though he knew or should have known it would not qualify as a TOME. Therefore, the Government claims Mr. … Koresko clearly “organized and participated in the sale” of the REAL VEBA arrangement. This final element is met. *692 f. Mr. Koresko’s Arguments Against Summary Judgment 179 Mr.

In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrocloride) Products Liability Litigation

26 F. Supp. 3d 466 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2014

The Third Circuit has distilled this rule to two essential inquiries: 1) is the proffered expert qualified to express an expert opinion; and 2) is the expert opinion reliable? … His research focuses on the impact of immunizations and anti-epileptic medications on developing embryos.

ELLIS v. BERKS COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2021

Thus, these claims clearly accrued more than two years before he filed this civil action. Mr. … Winston, he has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights because there is no constitutional 5 In any event, the Court notes that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under §

MIR v. BROD

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2022

Mir's complaint clearly establishes that the hearing examiner afforded him sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard; he simply declined to avail himself of it. … , absolute judicial immunity, or qualified immunity.

Kolbeck v. General Motors Corp.

702 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1989

Clearly, a common law damage award may have the effect of imposing requirements contrary to federally established purposes and objectives. 12 De La Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 156-59 , 102 S.Ct. at 3024-26 ; San Diego Building Trades … The Safety Act clearly was not designed to occupy the entire field of automotive safety standards. See Chrysler Corp. v.

MADAR v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2021

a defense under section 8541 (relating to governmental immunity generally) or section 8546 (relating to defense of official immunity).” … Plaintiff’s trespass claim is clearly barred. “The Tort Claims Act . . . renders the city immune from claims based on willful or malicious conduct.

Wheaton Industries Retiree Benefit Plan v. Glass, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers Employers Retiree Benefit Trust

691 F. Supp. 883 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1988

the Fund applicable thereto and shall pay or provide for the payment of any remaining balance thereof to or for the benefit of the persons in such group who, had they remained covered by this Trust Agreement, would have qualified … The plaintiffs counter that past interpretation of § 11.03 cannot justify continued adoption of a clearly erroneous interpretation of the Trust agreement.