Case law

Dudo v. Schaffer

93 F.R.D. 524 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1982

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 550 F.2d 860, 862 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc), the court stated: “We have taken the position that ‘to qualify for interlocutory review in this circuit, a class certification decision must … Clearly, the request for reconsideration was filed well beyond ten days after the orders were filed. Plaintiff has not set forth good cause for his delay in moving for reconsideration.

City of Philadelphia v. One Reading Center Associates

143 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2001

copy of the Qualified Third Party Offer and clearly state that each of TREET and HREF has approved the Qualified Third-Party Offer.... … The Consent further provides that Heitman will give Alaska notice of a “Qualified Third-Party Offer” for the Aramark Tower, defining a “Qualified Third-Party Offer” as “an offer to purchase the Property that is in a form

Alpha Pro Tech, Inc. v. VWR International LLC

984 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2013

‘free ride on the goodwill’ of the established mark.” … XXPC’s interest in clearing its name is more than sufficient to qualify it as a necessary party.” Id.

Rapp v. Singh

152 F. Supp. 2d 694 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 2001

Rule 702 thus “clearly contemplates some degree of regulation of the subjects about which an expert may testify.” Id. at 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786 . … For the purposes of deciding this motion, we will assume that all three of plaintiff's experls are "qualified” to testify under Fed. R.Evid. 104(a). 14 .

Williams v. Gelt Financial Corp.

237 B.R. 590 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 1999

Since Gelt’s loan to Williams qualified as a high cost loan under the statute, it is clearly covered by the pre-payment penalty prohibition in § 1639(c)(1)(A). (Tr. at 41). … Even if true, this testimony would not establish that Williams received the disclosure documents three days prior to the loan transaction as required by § 1639(b)(1).

In re Penn Central Transportation Co.

335 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1971

The Hotel was also required to supply, maintain and replace furnishings and equipment, and to add to them from time to time as necessary for the operation of the establishment as a first-class luxury hotel. … For the foregoing reasons, I have concluded that the language of the relevant documents is unambiguous, that the true intent of the parties is clearly reflected therein, and that there is therefore no need to resort to extraneous

Almazan v. Pennsylvania

80 F. Supp. 3d 602 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2015

On habeas review, the Court must determine whether the state court’s adjudication of the claims raised was (1) contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or (2) based on an unreasonable … Clearly, Petitioner was aware at that time that there were issues surrounding the timeliness of his state appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

United States v. Jasin

215 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2002

Higgins’ affidavit thus demonstrates quite clearly how trial counsel’s lack of diligence prejudiced defendant. … So I’m going to be a Government witness but I don’t need immunity. But since they had talked to me about getting immunity before, I wanted it to extend to the tax situation. Hr’g T. at 154-55.

DOE v. ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2021

New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act also historically immunized non-profit organizations and public entities from suit for negligence. Jd. § 2A:53A-7. … Judgment on the pleadings is not warranted unless the movant clearly establishes that “there are no material issues of fact, and that he is entitled t§ judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins.

Piazza v. Major League Baseball

831 F. Supp. 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1993

Such injuries are clearly of the type that Congress sought to redress through the antitrust laws. … "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." U.S. Const, art. IV, § 2, cl. 1. 8 .

United States v. Giamo

153 F. Supp. 3d 744 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2015

At one point, he did say he would have been willing to plead guilty to an arson scheme, but always qualified that with in doing so, he was not admitting full knowledge, but only that because he “started” a plan to burglarize … At one point, he said he was prepared to admit participating in an arson scheme, but qualified that statement by referring to a ten year prison sentence.

A.N. ex rel. Niziolek v. Upper Perkiomen School District

228 F. Supp. 3d 391 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2017

Accordingly, A.N. has not met his burden of establishing the first element of the preliminary injunction test. 2. … School officials, and investigating police, clearly viewed A.N.’s post as a school safety issue. Dr.

MCLINTOCK v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

Plaintiff believes that Hanson was qualified for the CFO position, but not qualified to head HR. (Pl. SUMF ¶ 17-19.) The record is unclear as to whether Hanson was actually considered for CFO. … Plaintiff next argues that she has made out pretext because Lowry was not qualified for the CFO position.

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Boyertown Area School District

276 F. Supp. 3d 324 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2017

CONCLUSION The plaintiffs here are required to clearly show that they are entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. … immunity contained in the Act.

KING

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2026

Claims against Bender and Fulcher: Personal Involvement and Immunity Finally, Timothy Bender and J. … and high official immunity.4 1.

Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates II, P.C.

268 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2016

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when» 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. … A writing presumably states the terms clearly, and without dispute. TILA violations are taken very seriously.

ZAMICHIELI v. ANDREWS

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

Act immunizes Dove from liability. … immunity.

FEINGOLD v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2025

Feingold did not establish a basis for diversity jurisdiction because he did not clearly plead his own citizenship and did not specify Erie’s citizenship or the amount in controversy. We granted Mr. … Feingold still has not established a basis for our limited subject matter jurisdiction. We grant Mr.

Berkowitz v. Allied Stores of Penn-Ohio, Inc.

541 F. Supp. 1209 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 1982

Lesser, was clearly conducting business in Pennsylvania on a regular, continuing, and substantial basis. It is therefore properly subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. … In this case, plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination.

MCDONALD v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived that immunity. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(b). … The United States Supreme Court “established a principle of abstention when federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding.” Yang v.