Case law

Popkave v. John Hancock Distributors LLC

768 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2011

However, elsewhere in its pleadings, Respondent is more cautious, writing only that “the Chair pointed out to the Claimant that JH Distributors argued it was the Claimant’s burden of proof to establish the proper party in … But the arbitrator here qualified his assumption with the word “normally.”

WIDMER v. WELTMAN WEINBERG & REIS CO., L.P.A.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2022

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate if “the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rosenau v. … “immune” from execution and property that is “exempt.”

STEAHLE v. CARGROUP HOLDINGS, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2024

Here, the Court must first address whether Defendant is an establishment that qualifies for the auto salesman exemption. … Defendant does not qualify for the FLSA exemption. Neither the agency regulations nor the statute defines the “ultimate purchaser” to clearly exclude other dealers like Adesa.

City of Philadelphia v. Klutznick

503 F. Supp. 663 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1980

The facts which will establish or fail to establish that the Bureau acted improperly in its conduct of local review exist now and need no time to mature. … Moreover, they argue, Congress has clearly rejected the use of an adjustment figure in the Census Act.

Velez v. Cisneros

850 F. Supp. 1257 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1994

His opinion was that Penn was “clearly moving towards being an uninhabitable site.” A.R. at 4290. … According to defendants, the reconstruction plans demonstrate that CHA’s units can be returned to useful life so a finding that the units qualify for demolition is precluded.

PERRY v. STACKHOUSE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2022

. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the court to screen the Complaint and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks damages from an immune defendant. … A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v.

HANNA v. BERKS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE COLIN BOYER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2021

Harris, the United States Supreme Court “established a principle of abstention when federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding.”46 Younger abstention “is premised on the notion of comity, a … proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims.”49 The Younger requirements are clearly

Kensington Joint Action Council v. Pauken

531 F. Supp. 656 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 1982

and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Shriver [Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity] state very clearly that labor union activities cannot be financed through OEO funds ...

Aircrane, Inc. v. Butterfield

369 F. Supp. 598 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 1974

Helicrane reserved the right to approve or disapprove the pilot in order to assure itself and its insurance carrier that the craft was being operated by a qualified person. … Preliminarily, we wish to state clearly what is in issue.

United States v. City of Philadelphia

482 F. Supp. 1248 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 1979

This policy would clearly be violated if I were now to grant by implication what Congress has chosen expressly to deny. … Moreover, the schedule was qualified by the statement that “[p]laintiff *1272 anticipates further discovery will be necessary concerning the actions of individual officers.”

Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins.

224 F.R.D. 169 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2004

P. 26(c). “ ‘Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity.’... … Therefore, any potential information regarding these goals and policies would clearly be relevant to the specific harm to Plaintiff.

Industrial Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Collins

419 F. Supp. 1171 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 1976

It shows very clearly the Congressional intention that the banks are to obtain no advance from SIPC, even if a bank is itself a customer of a bankrupt broker. … If the condition which qualified the right actually occurred, it would be quite clear that the bankruptcy of the broker caused the loss. In the case sub judice, issuer is and continues to be a very solvent corporation.

United States v. Boatwright

425 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1977

That testimony was clearly admissible; the scope of redirect examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court. See U.S. v. Hodges, 480 F.2d 229, 233 (10th Cir. 1973); and Chapman v. … While Boatwright’s counsel argued that one of the prosecution witnesses had testified to being a firearms “expert”, it was clear from the record that the government had made no effort to qualify that witness as an expert,

Delaware River Port Authority v. Fraternal Order of Police

135 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2001

Although the general rule is primarily invoked by courts considering whether a sovereign has waived its sovereign immunity, see, e.g., Block v. … that case, the petitioner, relying on a New York state statute, sought the termination of certain employment restrictions as a longshoreman which.had been imposed upon him by the Waterfront Commission, a bi-state agency established

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Seaboard Surety Co.

164 F. Supp. 723 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 1958

This is fact now and avoids the necessity of establishing whether or not the 2000 cubic yards per day “condition” was part of the contract. … Jamieson, as the engineer in charge of the job for the Turnpike Commission, was well qualified to explain what was meant by “cleaning-up.” It was his duty to determine whether the job was properly completed or not.

DWIGHT v. KRASNER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2024

As the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. Cons. … ) (permitting claim against defendant in his individual capacity to proceed event though “[plaintiff] did not check the box indicating a desire to sue [that defendant] in his individual capacity” where the allegations clearly

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.

General Public Utilities Corp. v. United States

551 F. Supp. 521 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1982

Resolution of the Government’s motion to dismiss 4 requires construction of two important exceptions to the general abrogation of sovereign immunity contained in the FTCA. … B, clearly specifies that although the licensee may delegate its obligation to establish and execute quality assurance programs, the licensee nevertheless “shall retain responsibility therefor”. Id.

Baksalary v. Smith

591 F. Supp. 1279 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1984

The purpose of this notice is to determine whether you qualify for a Special Supersedeas Hearing under the terms of the proposed Baksalary Consent Decree. … SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE Any class member desiring to comment on the proposed settlement must file a written statement with the Clerk of Court clearly and concisely stating its views.

Centennial School District v. Phil L. Ex Rel. Matthew L.

559 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2008

any express procedural protections; however, the regulations implementing the Act require specific due process protections: A recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary education program or activity shall establish … Sept. 18, 2000) (“[T]he record clearly shows that the Hearing Officer did not decide any other issues related to [the student’s] transportation to [school].