Case law

Mid-South Grizzlies v. National Football League

550 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1982

Per se violations should be found only where the involved agreements are so clearly anticompetitive and lacking in any redeeming quality that they can be conclusively presumed illegal without any further inquiry. … Now they seek to join the asserted antitrust violaters and share all the advantages of an established organization.

Yazdani v. BMW of North America, LLC

188 F. Supp. 3d 486 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 2016

Inc., 223 F.Supp.2d 626, 635 (E.D.Pa.2002) (although witness may qualify as expert based on variety of experiences and training, witness must have experience and training on subject matter of particular opinion to be offered … Chleborad, 551 F.2d 246, 248 (8th Cir.1977) (fact that defendant’s insurer employed witness “was clearly admissible to show possible bias of that witness”); Allstate Ins. Co. et. Al. v. Anderson and Patterson, E.D.

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.

Luongo v. Pennsylvania State Police

156 F. Supp. 3d 599 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2016

Plaintiffs go on to assert that Defendants acted intentionally and with callous disregard of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights, and that, as a result, Plaintiffs have suffered “severe and substantial damages … First, all claims against the PSP are dismissed pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment principle of sovereign immunity.

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.

JOHNAKIN v. BERRINGER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2019

He also asserts that on June 27, 2019 he qualified for food stamps and Medicaid, but still had to pay for counseling out of pocket. (/d at 12.) … As Pennsylvania has not waived its sovereign immunity, and because Congress has not explicitly abrogated immunity through authorizing legislation, the Eleventh Amendment operates as a bar to claims for damages under Section

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.

Guerrero v. Bensalem Racing Ass'n

25 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2014

Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., 256 F.3d 204 , 210 n. 3 (3d Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss at the pleading stage.... ”); Hartmann v. … This individual harm to Plaintiffs business is not sufficient to establish an antitrust injury.

United States v. Sunoco, Inc.

501 F. Supp. 2d 656 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2007

On the other hand, the courts have declined to find joint tortfeasor status where the tortious conduct is clearly independent and creates separable injuries. See Laaprogata v. … The United States waived immunity to the PADEP action under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 69911 (a) and § 313 of the Clean Water Act. 6 .

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PENSION PLAN v. BOWMAN

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

The Plan determined the draft unsigned order and the property settlement agreement provided by the parties did not establish a qualified domestic relations order; but, in August 28, 2019, the Plan wrote to Mr. … the start and end dates of payments.42 The start date is established here.

Koprowski v. Wistar Institute of Anatomy & Biology

819 F. Supp. 410 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1992

Counsel informed defendants that plaintiff qualified as a bona fide executive under the Act and the plaintiff was retired pursuant to counsel’s advice. … It clearly states that as director his salary would be commensurate with the highest paid professor at the University.

Tevelson v. Life and Health Ins. Co. of America

643 F. Supp. 779 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 1986

He was in the protected age group; there was evidence that he was qualified for the position; he was discharged from the position; and a younger person assumed his duties. Cf. Smithers v. … Moreover, defendant clearly presented evidence to suggest legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination.

BYRNE v. SMITH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2024

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310. … Any second amended complaint must clearly describe the factual basis for Mr.

Hearst Magazines, Division of the Hearst Corp. v. Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc.

293 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1968

Plaintiff apparently had little or no evidence of negligence on the part of Cuneo in advance of trial, and at trial sought to shift the procedural burden of going forward to Cuneo by establishing that the relation between … (Exhibit P-1) The intent of such a letter is clearly to invite Cuneo to rely by discontinuing any insurance against potential loss on Hearst’s paper.

PEPITONE v. TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2019

Municipalities have no immunity of their own and cannot adopt the derivative immunity of their officers. Owen v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “executive officials in general . . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Burlington v. NEWS CORPORATION

759 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2010

he/she was qualified for the position; (3) he/she was subject to an adverse employment action despite being qualified; and (4) ... circumstances that raise an inference of discriminatory action .... ” Warenecki v. … Unlike Plaintiff, Huddleston clearly used the word in its pejorative sense, rather than in a philosophical discussion of the word itself.

Roe v. Casey

464 F. Supp. 487 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1978

These allegations are clearly sufficient to support the standing of the health care providers to assert their federal statutory claims on their own behalf. Warth v. … Doe, supra: Although Title XIX does not require states to provide funding for all medical treatment falling within the five general categories, it does require that State medicaid plans establish “reasonable standards ...

MALONE v. EVITTS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2025

But the presence of these unsuccessful claims does not immunize a defendant against paying for the attorney’s fees that the plaintiff reasonably incurred in remedying a breach of his civil rights. … In the final analysis, however, the jury clearly found that one of the officers improperly pursued criminal charges and wanted to enforce federal law and hold that officer accountable.

United States v. Gambone

125 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2000

The court applied the standard established in Blockburger v. … Paragraph 13 of Count One of the Indictment clearly and explicitly alleges that all six Defendants conspired to defraud the United States. (Def's Mot. ¶ 13).

In re Sunrise Securities Litigation

130 F.R.D. 560 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 1989

Like other qualified privileges, it may be waived.” United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1974). … While the party seeking discovery of the tax returns bears the burden of establishing relevance, the party resisting disclosure should bear the burden of establishing alternative sources for the information.