Case law

GILLMORE v. LAMAS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2021

Although personal involvement is clearly established through participation, it can also be shown through allegations of “actual knowledge and acquiescence,” when made with “appropriate particularity.” … In addition to the foregoing, as Superintendent of the facility, Defendant Lamas clearly had knowledge that her employees—Lieutenants Friend, Adams, White, K.

Yellen v. Teledne Continental Motors, Inc.

832 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2011

JEVIC forecloses a plaintiffs capacity to use federal bankruptcy law to immunize itself against removal. … , 2011, Plaintiffs shall FILE a fee petition accounting for “just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal,” supported by the requisite billing and expense records, and clearly

GALE v. TERRA

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

Because the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. Cons. … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the search (citation omitted)); cf.

ALVAREZ v. HUD

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2022

The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for claims sounding in state tort law for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (waiving sovereign immunity to make the United States liable “in the same manner and to the … Any second amended complaint should clearly describe the factual basis for Alvarez’s claims 5 Because the Court is dismissing Alvarez’s federal claims, it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law

WHITAKER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2020

This waiver of immunity is not without exception. Under 28 U.S.C. … The Government bears the burden of establishing that the exception applies. S.R.P. ex rel. Abunabba v. United States, 676 F.3d 329, 333 (3d Cir. 2012).

United States v. Salvitti

464 F. Supp. 611 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1979

Second, the government has established that the defendant extorted money from the principals of Kissane-Leddy. … Clearly, the defendant had the power to steer business toward and away from Kissane-Leddy. 3 The defendant testified in his own defense.

Philadelphia World Hockey Club, Inc. v. Philadelphia Hockey Club, Inc.

351 F. Supp. 462 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 1972

Even if the Flyers sustain some injury, such harm would be insubstantial and the balance of hardship clearly would favor McKenzie. … But even if the Court assumes, arguendo, a duly authorized collective bargaining representative exists, labor-employer activities are not entirely immune from the anti-trust laws.

Crawford v. Cianciulli

357 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1973

in strict conformity with § 302(c) (5) no longer qualifies as a lawfully established fund to which an employer may make payments if benefits are paid from the fund to employees of employers who have ceased contributing to … And this result is clearly unlawful under § 302. As stated by Judge (now Circuit Judge) Van Dusen in Raymond v.

DIMITRI v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2019

Plaintiffs do not clearly allege whether the Officers were in uniform or plainclothes, whether they were operating their personal vehicles or a police vehicle, whether they were driving at excessive speeds as a matter of … Importantly, the TCA enumerates eight exceptions to immunity for local agencies.

KOSTIN v. BUCKS COMMUNITY COLLEGE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2022

It is clearly stated in the rules that the hospital nurse is Not [sic] to supervise a student.”).) 7 At the time of her dismissal, Ms. … with timing to establish a causal link.

JOHNSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2020

No. 29-9 (time stamped photograph of orange notice posted to the front door of the property)).3 The March notice also stated that “IF YOU FAIL TO 2 A building qualifies for a rating of 3 if an inspector finds: … We agree with the City that it is immune from liability on Johnson’s common law claim for negligent demolition because its actions do not fit within any of the nine exceptions to governmental immunity.

ROSADO v. THE CITY OF CHESTER COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2025

City of Englewood, 935 F.3d 155, 161-62 (3d Cir. 2019)) (granting summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to police officers who were alleged to have violated plaintiff’s First Amendment right to free speech when … “It is well established that possessory interests in property invoke procedural due process protections.” See Gale v. Storti, 608 F. Supp. 2d 629, 634 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (citing Abbott v.

HOYLE v. WRIGHT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2023

State’s case.”30 “[W]hether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity depends on whether she establishes that she was functioning as the state’s ‘advocate’ while engaging in the alleged conduct that gives rise to … prosecutorial immunity.32 3.

United States v. Marple Community Record, Inc.

335 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1971

On May 5, 1965, the Post Office Department reviewed Marple’s files and found that Marple did not have a legitimate list of subscribers to qualify for second class mail privileges as of that date. … In the situation before us, the defendants established the right to send mail at a second class rate.

HENDERSON v. EVANCHICKI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2021

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), 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. First, the publicly available docket for the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County demonstrates that pending criminal proceedings against Mr.

In re Lukens

138 F. 188 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1905

On September 29, 1903, Eukens was adjudged a voluntary bankrupt, and on October 16th a trustee was duly elected and qualified. On October 22d the mortgage was recorded. … This distinction, which, if attended to, will be found to reconcile the apparently jarring dicta of the judges, is as firmly established by the practice and decisions of the courts in Pennsylvania as any other in the law.

Crosley v. Davis

426 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1977

The Court stated: “There is § 1331 jurisdiction to award relief against the College if under Pennsylvania law it is not an agency of the Commonwealth covered by the Commonwealth’s immunity.” Id. at 44. … Taken together, these factors counsel that in the absence of clearly defined need, the implication of the proposed damages remedy is inappropriate.

Tillery v. Leonard & Sciolla, LLP

437 F. Supp. 2d 312 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2006

Tillery’s complaint alleges that the Firm’s web site lists matters on which no lawyer presently at the Firm has worked or would be qualified to work. … If Tillery can establish distinctiveness, he is most likely to establish it as to the name he actually used and uses: ”M. Kelly Tillery.” 8 .

McLaughlin v. Bayer Corp.

172 F. Supp. 3d 804 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2016

First, the court must ascertain whether the federal government has established requirements applicable to the medical device at issue. Id. … Pennsylvania law clearly requires that a negligence claim allege a causal connection between a defendant’s allegedly negligent conduct and the plaintiffs resulting injury. Beretta U.S.A.

In Re Stone Resources, Inc.

458 B.R. 823 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2011

The factual findings do not appear clearly erroneous as required for this Court to reverse the determination of the Bankruptcy Court. … Nyren (In re Nyren), 187 B.R. *834 424, 425 (Bankr.D.Conn.1995) (“[A]n employer’s right to an injunction to prevent a former employee from violating a covenant not to compete does not qualify as a ‘claim’ dischargeable in