Case law

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.

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

LEWIS v. BRANTLEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2024

As the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. Cons. … . § 8521-22, it and its departments, as well as its officials sued in their official capacities, are immune from suits filed in federal court.

McGuckin v. Brandywine Reality Trust

185 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2016

(“[T]he compensation due an employee is clearly an area where the employer has. a legitimate interest, and we find no violation of public policy here.”). … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under ADEA, plaintiff must show that (1) he is over forty years old; (2) he is qualified for the position in question; (3) he suffered an adverse employment decision;

ROPER v. CARTER'S PRO QUALITY CLEANING, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2024

. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the Court to screen and dismiss the Complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. … In general, to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must show that plaintiff: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position in question; (3) suffered an adverse

Annett v. Nationwide Life Insurance

410 F. Supp. 1265 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1976

In order to avoid a policy of insurance, an insurance company must establish that declarations in the application or medical examinations are false, that these declarations are material to the risk assumed by the insurance … Certainly the brain scan performed in November of 1969 would qualify as a “medical test.” Question 7(b) asked if Mr. Annett had been advised or treated by a doctor for fainting spells within the past 10 years, and Dr.

CHILD v. DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2024

Petitioners bear the burden of establishing these elements. See Lujan v. … Even if Petitioners could establish that Respondents provided ballots to “unqualified” voters, they have not established that any such ballot will be cast, nor do they connect any alleged improper voting to their roles

Alers v. City of Philadelphia

919 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2013

This policy was clearly implemented by PPD as an effort to prevent its employees from working overtime that had not been properly authorized. … alleged attacks perpetuated by Defendants on PPD premises, the hostile desk gags and stealing of his gun would not ordinarily be expected in the workplace and arguably are sufficiently unrelated to Alers’ employment to qualify

Eclipse Electronics v. Chubb Corp.

176 F. Supp. 2d 406 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2001

Therefore, due to the very nature of the Battelle Study, clearly articulated standards control the methodology Peel employed. 5. … Relationship of the technique to methods established to be reliable According to Eclipse, the technique and its relationship to the method used in the instant case are closely aligned.

United States v. Duval

25 F. Cas. 953 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1833

I told the jury that I was very clear that this item ought not to be allowed, on any principle of law or equity, and it is as clearly against the evidence. … The service as a commissioner was clearly not within the scope of his office of governor. It is no example or precedent in this case. So of the case of Col. McKenney.

United States v. Acavino

467 F. Supp. 284 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 1979

McKeever, 169 F.Supp. 426, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1958), requiring the Government to establish seven facts before a sound recording can be admitted into evidence: (1) That the recording device was capable of taking the conversation … United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), were clearly satisfied. III. A. Defendant Gangemi, Jr.’s severance motion alleges that he will be substantially prejudiced by a joint trial.

Behrend v. Comcast Corp.

245 F.R.D. 195 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 2007

We find that the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is clearly satisfied in this case. … Beyer has been qualified as an expert in at least eight antitrust eases. (See PI. Mem. at 20-22.)

PEARSALL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 2026

As also previously noted, Pearsall I, 2026 WL 540785, at *2; Pearsall II, 2026 WL 917413, at *3, to assert a plausible Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must allege facts establishing that “(1) … Pearsall is further instructed not to reassert claims that are barred by absolute immunity or claims that are clearly untimely.

GENTLES v. THE BOROUGH OF POTTSTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2020

J. 7 This Court notes that Defendants herein assert a defense of qualified immunity. … However, “attempts to obtain qualified immunity by rebutting or supplementing the allegations in [a] [p]laintiff’s Complaint are improper at [the motion to dismiss] stage of the proceedings.” Collick v.

WILLIAMS v. NUTTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2019

did not violate a constitutional right and, moreover, any such right was not clearly established. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 199 (2001) (discussing the two-part test the courts apply to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity).

Total Control, Inc. v. Danaher Corp.

324 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2004

To the contrary, the amendment clearly states, through the use of the term “begin,” that Danaher can designate the product’s classification at any time after January 1, 1994. … Count III • Whether Total Control qualifies as a sales representative, i.e., whether Total Control solicits wholesale orders from retailers rather than consumers.

Burks v. City of Philadelphia

974 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 1997

First, he argues that Robb and Roberts did not establish prima facie cases of employment discrimination. … The same reasoning applies to Plaintiffs’ attempt to establish municipal liability.

HEPP v. FACEBOOK, INC.

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

However, the Third Circuit has also held that “a mere unsupported allegation that the defendant ‘transacts business’ in an area is ‘clearly frivolous”’ for purposes of determining whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted … Interactive websites and social media platforms are entitled to immunity under § 230(c) for content provided by third parties.

Fisher Bros. v. Mueller Brass Co.

102 F.R.D. 570 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 1984

The definition of the class is sufficient to identify clearly who is and is not in the class. … The court is satisfied that the class definition clearly identifies the class members.