Case law

Jeannot v. Phila. Hous. Auth.

356 F. Supp. 3d 440 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2018

Additionally, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Layne , 526 U.S. 603 , 615, 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) ) ("The constitutional right violated 'must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can determine if it was clearly established

WARREN v. LEHIGH COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2019

Property Interest “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire” and “more than a unilateral expectation of it. … federal court’s exercise of pendent jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims is that at least one claim based on the court’s original diversity or federal question jurisdiction is before the court.’”84 “It is well established

WILLIAMS v. RUSSELL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2024

App’x 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2003) (noting that a verified complaint may qualify as an affidavit); Brown v. Dow, No. 08-cv-4330, 2011 WL 5080179, at *2 (D.N.J. … In addition, the video clearly portrays the other guards’ use of minimal force to subdue and calm Plaintiff.

Reiser v. Stone

791 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 1992

Schlesinger, 531 F.2d 124, 127-128 (3d Cir.1976), the Third Circuit said: * * # # * * *1074 “To qualify for a discharge from the armed forces as a conscientious objector, an applicant must establish that he is opposed to … So, clearly, we must turn to the factors discussed below.

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.

Ansel Properties, Inc. v. Nutri/System of Florida Associates (In Re Nutri/System of Florida Associates)

178 B.R. 645 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1995

existence, or, as commonly referred to the corporate veil may, however, be pierced under Pennsylvania law when “the corporation was an artifice and sham to execute illegitimate purpose and an abuse of the corporate fiction and immunity … These facts clearly establish that although the debtors might appear as marionettes, like many debtors in Bankruptcy, the strings which were controlling their movements were being tugged and pulled in diverse directions by

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.

Chicarelli v. Plymouth Garden Apartments

551 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1982

Chicarelli’s deposition testimony established that at the time she entered into the lease her income was greater than $10,000 per year. The requirements of Swarb were thus not applicable to her. … Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to show that they were deprived of any federal right because of the unconstitutionality of the established state confession of judgment procedure.

Huffaker v. Bucks County District Attorney's Office

758 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1991

At least the record does not clearly preclude such a finding. … A.Fifth Amendment Claim Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his “immunity under the Fifth Amendment from punishment without due process of law.”

CORBIN v. FRENCH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 2022

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived that immunity. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(b). … The Younger requirements are clearly met in this case for the claims against Holveck and French.

STURGIS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2024

crime, actual fraud, actual malice, or willful misconduct that defeat the statutory immunity granted by the Tort Claims Act, and that, as a matter of law, the Tort Claims Act does not immunize the Lieutenant, the CO Defendants … These allegations clearly identify the PPD Defendants’ participation in the alleged wrongful conduct.

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.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

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

Panvini plainly pleads facts sufficient to establish injury during the course of his normal job duties. And Mr. Panvini’s “employment by [Belfi] was the sole reason . . . … Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when “the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains . . . and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rosenau v.

Warshaw v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

442 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1977

We find, on the basis of the foregoing medical opinion from a duly qualified medical expert, and on the basis of all the evidence adduced for the purpose of justifying the assumptions of the hypothetical question, that the … The evidence established that Mr. Warshaw either had a cold, a bacterial infection, a virus, or a combination of these ailments.

HOFFMAN v. KARPOVICH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2022

When attempting to establish a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege and prove that a “person” deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right while acting under color of state law. See West v. … DiBella and McLaughlin failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution because their attendance at trial did not qualify as a Fourth Amendment seizure.”

Blunt v. Lower Merion School District

826 F. Supp. 2d 749 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2011

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … To show a policy, a plaintiff must establish that a “ ‘decisionmaker possessing] final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action’ issue[d] an official proclamation, policy, or edict.”

O'NEILL v. City of Philadelphia

817 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1993

The City asserts that anyone who did not qualify for the statute of limitations defense as of June 1, 1989, lost their right to assert it before the BAA. … Since none of Goodman’s tickets qualified for the statute of limitations on that date, they remained on his traffic violation record.

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp

11 F. Supp. 2d 586 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 1998

The federal government — the government which enacted the PLRA and thereby established the standard for termination — is clearly not a party to the Consent Decree in this case and where “the Government [enacting the legislation … All parties have, since 1983, treated the Amendment to Stipulation as binding; all parties signed it; Magistrate Judge Hall clearly recommended that it be approved and Judge Lord just as clearly approved it.

Gehman v. Argent Mortgage Co. LLC

726 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2010

Thus, defendant contends that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for civil conspiracy. … Thus, even if my requirement for a separate concise statement were not consistent with Rule 56, I gave plaintiffs actual notice of my requirement, and plaintiffs clearly failed to comply with it.

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.