Case law

GONZALEZ v. REICHLEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2020

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the United States Supreme Court “established a principle of abstention when federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding.” Yang v. … The Younger requirements are clearly met in this case. First, the criminal proceeding against Gonzalez is still pending.

Comprehensive Group Health Services Board Directors v. Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education

363 F. Supp. 1069 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1973

The second is 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3), which confers federal jurisdiction in civil actions commenced by any person “[t]o redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the … And, with respect to § 1343(3) and the nature of the deprivation alleged, there has been no claim of denial of equal protection or “privileges and immunities,” and it is questionable whether the conduct of defendants can

Vizzini v. Ford Motor Co.

72 F.R.D. 132 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1976

The defendant argues that the statement we received from the jury (Court Exhibit 7) clearly indicates that the jury verdict on liability was not unanimous. … This long established rule is now expressed in Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence: “(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment.

Hafner v. Weinberger

402 F. Supp. 61 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1975

Tomlin, and asked whether any jobs existed for which plaintiff was vocationally qualified. Mr. … In the instant case, plaintiff has clearly met his burden of proving that he has medically determinable physical impairments.

William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey

430 F. Supp. 2d 458 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 2006

Clearly the notice was not omitted from only a “relatively small number of copies.” … Clearly, some of those proposals contained material extracted from the Works.

GRACE v. JUDGE IDEE C. FOX

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2020

Grace did not provide sufficient information to establish when these delinquencies accrued. (ECF No. 5 at 1–27.) … Here, Grace clearly bases her claims against Judges Fox, Patrick, and Simpson on their alleged rulings in her tax assessment case. (See ECF No. 9 at 3.)

Coregis Insurance v. Wheeler

180 F.R.D. 280 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 1998

Analysis under FRCP 19 Based on my review of the mate-, rial facts, I conclude that neither Wendler nor Bertholon-Rowland qualify as necessary parties to this action under Rule 19(a). … Consequently, a district court should abstain from this obligation only in those “exceptional circumstances where ... repair to the State court would clearly serve an important countervailing interest.”

Patukas v. Jenkins

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2025

That is one of Pennsylvania’s statutory exceptions to government immunity. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(1) (the “Vehicle Exception”). … That careful analysis clearly shows why Plaintiffs’ claim must survive here. Here, the connection between the emotional distress and the City Defendants’ use of vehicles is not at all tenuous.

HERDER v. MINEHART

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2023

Since Herder’s claims against Judge Minehart appear to be based on acts he took in his judicial capacity in a case over which he clearly had jurisdiction to act, Judge Minehart is entitled to absolute immunity for those … Claims for sexual abuse and harassment are evaluated similarly to excessive force claims in that the prisoner must allege facts plausibly establishing both objective and subjective components.

YOUNG v. DOE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2024

For example, Judge Savage counseled “[o]nly the Pennsylvania Legislature can establish the penalty for a crime . . . … Dec. 27, 2023) (“[T]he United States Supreme Court has not held, nor clearly established a rule, that state courts must consider an individual’s ‘youthfulness’ when sentencing an adult.”). 22 Commonwealth v.

Kramer v. Nowak

908 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1995

The principle of respondeat superior does not immunize employees from breaches of duty committed within the scope of employment. … The effect of creating such an exception would be to immunize from liability the torts committed by subordinate attorneys against their employers.

GUASTAFERRO v. FAMILY DOLLAR

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

The litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must establish that the litigant is unable to pay the costs of suit. See Walker v. … In this case, Guastaferro has not alleged any facts to support a plausible conclusion that any of the named defendants meet any of the foregoing tests to qualify as state actors under section 1983.

Freeth v. Zurich American Insurance

152 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2015

Zurich counters that the Summary Form qualifies as a written election of lower UM limits, in full compliance with the PA MVFRL. … In simple terms, Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme spells out an explicit, highly technical, and rigorous standard, of which Zurich was clearly aware.

United States Ex Rel. Huntt v. Russell

285 F. Supp. 765 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 1968

As we read the opinion of the court1, these facts were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. … We are not convinced that the imposition of different sentences on Huntt and Weaver “clearly flouted constitutional standards of due process.” Ibid., 378 F.2d p. 812.

BRACEY v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

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

Although the plan for removal from the Restrict Release List was ultimately rescinded, the existence of a plan establishes that Plaintiff’s status was reviewed by prison staff. … “Section 8521 of Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Code clearly states, ‘Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to waive the immunity of the Commonwealth from suit in Federal courts guaranteed by the Eleventh

DANKANICH v. PRATT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2020

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs must establish that the City Solicitor qualifies as an “agency” and that its decision regarding the proposed complaint under the Ordinance was an “adjudication,” i.e. that there was … The City Solicitor’s Office qualifies as an “agency,” and thus, the first requirement is satisfied.

United States v. Kemp

365 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2005

At the final stage, the materials have clearly entered the public realm. … The secrecy of grand jury proceedings is well established in American law. See U.S. v.

GIBSON v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2023

Letizio as a defendant sued in his individual capacity, or whether a defense of qualified immunity can apply here. See Davis v. Malitzki, 451 F. … App’x 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense available to government officials who are sued in their personal capacities for money damages.”). Plaintiff’s claim against Dr.

HOWARD v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 2024

As the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. Cons. … . § 8521-22, it and its departments, as well as its officials sued in their official capacities, are immune from suits filed in federal court.

McMullan v. Thornburgh

508 F. Supp. 1044 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1981

That report, made to Deputy Secretary Welch and dated April 24, 1979, focused specifically on the system of local registrars established by Act No. 66. … Rather than subsidize these activities with public funds, we are replacing some of them with qualified Republicans.’ ” At a later point in the article the reporter reports that, “Thornburgh was confident the Elrod decision