Case law

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.

Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth of Pa.

372 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1974

This is true, no matter how clearly plaintiff’s claim may lack substantive merit.” Miller v. National Maritime Union, supra, 275 F.Supp. at 810 . … Although the Amendment by its terms refers only to suits against a state by citizens of other states, “it is established that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in • federal courts by its own citizens as well

Kline v. First Western Government Securities

794 F. Supp. 542 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 1992

The letters clearly stated the factual premises about the First Western trading program on which they relied. … To prove aider and abettor liability for a securities violation, a three-part test has been established.

KOVALEV v. NAZARETH HOSPITAL

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

“Section 2000a sets forth a comprehensive list of establishments that qualify as a place of public accommodation and in so doing excludes from its coverage those categories of establishments not listed.” Castillo v. … Included within the list of qualifying establishments “are places that provide lodging to travelers, restaurants and other facilities that sell food for consumption on the premises, and places of exhibition

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.

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

United States v. Johns

742 F. Supp. 196 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1990

The government has clearly established the existence of a scheme to defraud Acme. … Samuel Posner and Joel Busel were immunized by the government. 94. Gerald Lotenberg and Barry Frazee testified before the grand jury without requesting or receiving immunity and were not prosecuted. 95.

Sabatini v. Reinstein

222 F. Supp. 3d 444 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2016

On its face, the stated policy and the testimony of the CPD officers at trial establish that the policy was content neutral. … Moreover, the policy was clearly established that “if [materials are] going to be displayed on a table, if they’re going to be posted on a bulletin *456 board, they needed proper attribution, they needed to be stamped, and

Boyce v. Rizzo

78 F.R.D. 698 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 1978

whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy,” and it added that in such an action the association could assert the rights of its members, “at least so long as the challenged infractions adversely affect … Since this case involves Boyce’s dismissal from her employment, the interest sought to be protected clearly is germane to the unions’ function of protecting School District employees.

Edmonson v. Lincoln National Life Insurance

899 F. Supp. 2d 310 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2012

Next, the Second Circuit rejected plaintiffs’ contention that MetLife remained an ERISA fiduciary after establishing the TCAs because the funds in its general account backing them qualified as plan assets. … From that point forward, Lincoln’s remaining obligations were simply to honor Plaintiffs checks and pay interest on her account at a specified rate — duties which are clearly administrative and ministerial.

Robert Alan Insurance Agency v. Girard Bank

107 F.R.D. 271 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1985

The Third Circuit has declared that [a]dequate representation depends on two factors: (a) the plaintiff’s attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and (b) the plaintiff … However, the situation in Rodiguez is quite clearly distinguishable from the circumstances of this case..

Duckworth v. Ford Motor Company

211 F. Supp. 888 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1962

Plaintiff’s witness, Pruyn, qualified as an expert based on his education and experience. He examined parts of the Duckworth vehicle and was able to express the opinion outlined above as to the cause of the accident. … Ford clearly failed in its burden, therefore, to prove that. White did anything at the 1,000 mile inspection to create the condition which caused the accident.

Cannon v. City of Philadelphia

86 F. Supp. 2d 460 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2000

away from liability, or clearly toward it, only at the ends of the tort law’s spectrum of culpability.” … Defendants do not raise, and therefore I will not address, the defense of qualified immunity. 14 . Plaintiff asserts that the police car congestion on the street was the result of an "unannounced drill.”

KOVALEV v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2023

Kovalev succeeded in asserting a negligence per se theory, because the theory establishes only the first two elements of negligence (duty and breach), he would still have the burden of establishing the second two elements … The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed that to qualify as a place of public accommodation, two elements must be fulfilled: “first, it must be one of the statutorily enumerated categories of establishments that

Boston v. Mooney

141 F. Supp. 3d 352 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2015

Op 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, as determined by the United States … Given the evidence, it cannot be said that the state courts’ findings were contrary to, or unreasonable applications of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Standard Terry Mills, Inc. v. Shen Manufacturing Co.

622 F. Supp. 791 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1985

The features of the Flemish Wonder towel that enhance its quality are clearly functional. Inwood Laboratories, 456 U.S. at 850 n. 10, 102 S.Ct. at 2187 n. 10. … Under the law of trademarks, however, [pjroducts or features which have not qualified for patent protection but which are functional are in the public domain, and are fair game for imitation and copying.

Lewis v. Marriott International, Inc.

527 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2007

It is well established that “[t]he commerce requirement has been broadly interpreted.” U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Blue Cross, 898 F.2d 914 , 922 (3d Cir.1990); Highmark, Inc. v. … [Section] 43(a) ... protects qualifying unregistered trademarks and ... the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining whether an unregistered

GRIMES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2019

immunity. … immunity.

Nazareth Hospital v. Sebelius

938 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2013

A hospital qualifies for Medicaid DSH allotments based on statutory requirements. See Section 1923 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-4(b). … CMS’s Administrator did so based primarily on a faulty interpretation of the Medicare DSH statute: "Section 1886(d) [Medicare DSH statute] clearly states that the patients’ Title XIX [Medicaid] eligibility for that day is

United States ex rel. Sadler v. United States

315 F. Supp. 1377 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1970

For to apply mechanically a vacation of sentence doctrine can clearly thwart the trial judge’s intentions even where there is no allegation of lack of due process or fairness in the manner in which the trial judge evaluated … altogether because the court committed an error in passing the sentence.’ * * * “The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner.”