Case law

United States v. One 1973 Rolls Royce V.I.N. SRH-16266

817 F. Supp. 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1993

THE INNOCENT OWNER DEFENSE Once the government has established probable cause for forfeiture, the burden of proof shifts to the claimant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he qualifies as an “innocent owner … Clearly money collected by the L.C.N. from drug dealers was derived, albeit indirectly, from the sale of illegal drugs.

Aaron Williams v. City of Philadelphia, C/O Ekiti Mesumbe, C/O Vincen Zul

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2026

Congress through Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits a public entity like a correctional facility from discriminating against or excluding a “qualified” disabled person from its programs or services … Williams must allege: “(1) he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) [who] was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or was subjected

Rarick v. Federated Serv. Ins. Co.

325 F. Supp. 3d 590 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2018

In the subsequent Declaration, the amount is clearly set at $1,000,000 for "directors, officers, partners or owners ... and their 'family members'...." Id. at 39. … Just below, the amount of UM coverage for "any other persons qualifying as 'insureds' under the WHO IS AN INSURED provision" is left blank. Id.

United States v. Hewes

26 F. Cas. 297 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1840

The learned judge who delivered the opinion admitted that if the terms of the law are to be understood without any limitation, they clearly extend to the case before him. … There is another principle or rule in the construction of statutes, so well established by authority, and so entirely reasonable in itself, that it may be assumed to be unquestionable.

Quinn Construction, Inc. v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.

730 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2010

However, specific provisions will be regarded as qualifying the meaning of broad general terms in relation to a particular subject. A.G. Cullen Const., Inc. v. … Section 9.5 of the subcontracts clearly gives Penn the power to pass upon the 25 change orders at issue here.

MOORE v. MERCADO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2022

The plaintiffs allege that in January 2017, their children were “given to” relatives whom they contend do “not qualify for ‘kinship’ care because of the toxic relationship that existed before plaintiffs ever had [their … The litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must establish that the litigant is unable to pay the costs of suit. See Walker v.

PEREZ-MARTINEZ v. THE COUNTY OF UNION PENNA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2025

Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its agencies in federal court when the state has not waived that immunity, id., and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived that immunity. … Any amended complaint must clearly describe the factual basis for his claims and how the defendant was personally involved in the alleged denial of Perez’s rights.

In Re Penn Central Transportation Co.

411 F. Supp. 1079 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1976

Section 211(h)(3) is clearly designed to identify the available resources of the Trustees, and thus provide a basis for financial planning in administering the (h)(1) loan program. … As noted above, many of these escrow accounts contain funds, the ownership of which has yet to be established. All are subject to various liens.

LEBRON v. EASON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2024

) (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 … Oct. 4, 2017) (“Negligent failure to prevent an attack by an inmate is insufficient to establish violation of the Eighth Amendment.”). Accordingly, Mr.

United States v. Llera Plaza

188 F. Supp. 2d 549 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2002

A logically antecedent — but far less difficult — question was whether, as the government also contended, the uniqueness and the permanence of fingerprints are matters that have been so clearly established as to be proper … It may be that further inquiry by qualified forensic specialists and persons versed in skills-testing will answer those questions in the FBI’s favor.

Death Row Prisoners of Pennsylvania v. Ridge

948 F. Supp. 1278 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1996

McFarland clearly states that the right to counsel attaches at some instant before the formal filing of a habeas petition. … This will allow the district court in the specific venue to consider the effective allocation of available qualified counsel and other resources in ruling on the motion. An appropriate Order follows.

Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.

867 F. Supp. 2d 663 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2012

Sellara Ismail, both qualified experts skilled in the art relevant to this case, testified about their impressions of the prior art references submitted by Defendant Antee, and whether they qualified as inventions used prior … I might make a note that I did not — once we clearly show — once we have talked about the fact that the Antee device, we know from the — that all of these read on the '955 patent, all of the Antee devices.

MCINTYRE v. WALLACE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2021

Yodis apparently reviewed the video and, after he returned, allegedly said that the video clearly showed that McIntyre did not assault Wallace. See id. … official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.”).

Davis v. Solid Waste Services, Inc.

20 F. Supp. 3d 519 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2014

Tangible Adverse Employment Actions To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he is qualified for the position; ( … Nor could they, as there is no evidence in the record that qualifies as "direct” evidence of discrimination.

ROBINSON v. INTEGRATED DEICING SERVICES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2025

. § 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 in an employment discrimination action may establish a prima facie case either through direct evidence of discrimination, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v.

SNA, Inc. v. Array

51 F. Supp. 2d 542 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1999

they mean what plaintiff contends, there is a serious question whether the contracts are enforceable as a matter of public policy because of their attempt to create a private patent for a product not qualifying for federal … With regard to each of these claims of individual immunity, the court notes that it is to be decided at trial -whether the individuals’ personal involvement in the acts alleged subject them to individual liability, whether

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation

284 F.R.D. 278 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2012

To assist them, Plaintiffs have retained attorneys who are highly qualified, experienced, and able to conduct this litigation. … Risks of Establishing Liability, Damages, and Maintaining the Class Action Through Trial These three Girsh factors concern the risks of establishing liability, damages, and maintaining a class action through trial.

Ross v. AmeriChoice Federal Credit Union

530 B.R. 277 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2015

This Court will therefore not disturb any determination of bad faith unless it is premised on factual findings that are clearly erroneous. … See Myers, 491 F.3d at 125 (“[W]e will not set aside the Bankruptcy Court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”).

MOSS v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGERS CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2019

Moss was the most qualified candidate.” (Id. at 7.) … Moss was most qualified for the position (which she did not), it would not establish that Mr. Pielli disbelieved the reasons he expressed for selecting Mr. Tiller.”

In Re Kulicke & Soffa Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation

747 F. Supp. 1136 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 1990

Although plaintiff clearly has not met his burden of proof, I will briefly explain why the evidence he cites supports the jury's verdict. … Pompa clearly did not harbor any ill-will towards Mr. Spector or his client during any stage of the trial. There is no reason to doubt Mr. Pompa’s credibility.