Case law

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

Rumbaugh v. Beck

491 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1980

A termination date of June 30, 1979 was verbally established. … The surrender of mutual rights qualifies as sufficient consideration, Kirk v.

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.”

WASHINGTON v. DeJOY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2022

First, Defendant is immune from suit. As an agency of the United States, the United States Postal Service is part of the United States government and, thus, maintains the same sovereign immunity. U.S. … A court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action against a federal agency unless the plaintiff meets his/her burden of proving that sovereign immunity has been clearly, expressly, and unambiguously been waived.

Goldberg v. Rostker

509 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1980

This purpose is clearly valid. However, the need to register men only, and the need not to register women, is not so apparent. … In the Vietnam conflict, more than 7,000 women served in support roles which qualified for combat pay. Statement of Bernard D.

Gottesman

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2026

This argument fails, because the failure to search is clearly an omission, and describing it as a violation does not convert it to affirmative conduct. … C.S. §8541, local agencies and their employees, such as the Director and Warden, are immune from liability for such claims unless an exception applies under §8542.

BEY v. AMOROSO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2024

absolute immunity to prosecutors from tort claims that are based on actions taken or statements made in the course of their official duties. … retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.”)

United States v. Williams

317 F. Supp. 1363 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1970

It would clearly be unreasonable to impute to this defendant, a 21 year old high school graduate, who was completely unaware *1370 of 32 C.F.R. § 1604.52 (c) and a legal proceeding called quo warranto, knowledge of information … When wo speak of ‘‘qualified” citizens we mean those who meet the threshold qualifications for appointment to servo on a Local Board.

LEWIS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2026

Defendant first contends Plaintiff has failed to establish an underlying constitutional violation (but does not explicitly state what constitutional violation Plaintiff fails to establish). Id. at 10. … (attendance at a trial or hearing does not qualify as a Fourth Amendment seizure); DiBella v.

Petersen v. National Flood Insurance Program

200 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2002

Statutory and Factual Background 3 Congress established the NFIP in 1968 to provide flood insurance at or below actuarial rates. … Though the SFIP makes no reference to either permitting or banning supplemental claims, it does very clearly state that a proof of loss must be filed within sixty days of the alleged loss. See Ambassador Beach Condo.

LaLoup v. United States

92 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2015

The United States, by virtue of sovereign immunity, may not be sued without its consent. United States v. … We construe the scope of a waiver of sovereign immunity strictly and in favor of the sovereign. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 , 116 S.Ct. 2092 , 135 L.Ed.2d 486 (1996).

MOORE v. LOWER FREDERICK TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2022

While Defendants also raise a defense of qualified immunity on this count, we need not decide that issue at this juncture, as the count is being dismissed. … Once standing is established, a plaintiff must then plead and prove the essential elements of his claims.

SATCHER v. ARMSTEAD

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2021

Long is entitled to absolute immunity, and Mr. Satcher’s claim against him will be dismissed with prejudice. B. … The Younger requirements are clearly met in this case. First, the criminal proceeding against Mr. Satcher is still pending, and there is no question that it is a judicial proceeding. See Thomas v.

WILLIAMS v. DOOLEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2023

) (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 … To state a claim for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege facts establishing that he was arrested without probable cause. See Orsatti v. N.J.

United States v. Andrews

15 F. Supp. 3d 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2014

The record establishes that trial counsel adequately investigated the issue and did not render deficient performance. Additionally, the record establishes that Andrews cannot establish prejudice. … The record establishes that trial counsel adequately investigated the issue and did not render deficient performance. Additionally, the record establishes that Andrews cannot establish prejudice.

JOHN HEBERT v. SPRING-FORD AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2026

. § 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. … A plaintiff’s “subjective belief that a [co-worker]’s statement violated the ADEA does not suffice for her complaint [about that statement] to qualify as protected conduct.”

United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Evangelista

698 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1988

Defendant claims that Vincent Evangelista qualified as a “family member.” … However, if they are clearly worded, unambiguous and conspicuously displayed, they are to be given their plain meaning and are effective against a claim by an insured. Missouri Terrazzo Company, Inc. v.

POWELL v. HARRY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2024

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived that immunity. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(b). … This is because participation in the grievance process does not, without more, establish involvement in the underlying constitutional violation. See Curtis v. Wetzel, 763 F.

DINGER v. BRYN MAWR BANK CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2022

Supp. 3d at 492 (“The weight of authority in the [Third Circuit], as well as other Circuits, clearly establishes that a leave of absence for an indefinite duration is not a reasonable accommodation.”). … To establish that an accommodation is reasonable, a plaintiff must show that its costs do not clearly outweigh its benefits.

TALLEY v. IONATA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2020

They also invoke qualified and sovereign immunity. We shall dismiss those claims for which Talley failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and dismiss his remaining federal claims for failure to state a claim. … The Privileges and Immunities Clause reads: “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.