Case law

Solter v. Health Partners of Philadelphia, Inc.

215 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2002

Nonetheless, in order to qualify for federal assistance, a participating state must submit to the Secretary and have approved “a plan for medical assistance.” … Such remedies are for Congress to state or to clearly imply, not for us to infer.” Id. at 1093 .

Spearman v. United States

690 F. Supp. 1435 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1988

The incumbent must be physically qualified to carry out the duties required by Fire Watch/Top Watch instructions and/or training. The individual must successfully pass the required training course outlined herein. … Finally, the specific work performed by the plaintiff, to wit, assisting shore based welders in the total retrofitting of the ship, was clearly not the type of work traditionally done by the ship’s crew.

KIM

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2026

Kim Does Not Establish Irreparable Harm To establish irreparable harm, “a plaintiff must demonstrate harm [that] cannot be redressed by a legal or an equitable remedy following a trial.” Acierno v. … TremeBio has cleared that hurdle most clearly on its trade secrets claim.

Farina v. Nokia

578 F. Supp. 2d 740 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2008

Accordingly, the threshold question is whether the Pinney decision qualifies as the law of the case. We conclude that it does not. … As such, we reject Defendants’ reliance on dictionary definitions of “facilities” to stretch the term beyond Congress’s clearly articulated context.

ORLENA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2026

Her proposals are therefore “‘clearly ineffective’” because they would still have required her “to undertake activity that [her] own doctors had deemed ‘unsafe.’” … Causation is a question 3 Unlike her discrimination and failure to accommodate claims, Orlena’s retaliation claims do not require her establish that she is a “qualified individual.” Krouse v. Am.

PAN v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, INC.

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

Pan did establish a prima facie case, summary judgment would be warranted. … Pan expressly agreed to extend immunity to Temple in connection with reports to medical boards.

RISTER v. BURKE

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

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the United States Supreme Court “established a principle 9 To the extent Rister’s Amended Complaint could be liberally construed to name the Philadelphia Police Department itself as a Defendant … The Younger requirements are clearly met in this case.

Phillips v. Ward

415 F. Supp. 976 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1976

For one thing, the facts do not establish that it was this gesture by Phillips rather than simply his potential escape, that caused defendant to shoot. … Leshner testified that Gary Phillips would have been qualified for unskilled or semi-skilled occupations, such as retail selling. Dr.

O'Connor v. United States Department of Treasury

570 F. Supp. 2d 749 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2008

The single document rule is satisfied if the affidavits clearly link the information in each and were drafted with each other in mind. Id. … To justify withholding information under Exemption 6, the invasion of privacy must be “clearly unwarranted.” Id.

Hartmann v. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

55 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1944

The Stimson case more clearly reflects the mind of the court: (The action was against the Secretary of War; the claim was made that the United States should be joined.) “First. … from suit does not protect its officers from personal liability to persons whose rights of property they have wrongfully invaded. * * * And in case of an injury threatened by his illegal action, the officer cannot claim immunity

FREEMAN v. MOORE EYE CARE, P.C.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 5, 2022

To prevail on an action under the statutes, a plaintiff must establish that [s]he is a “qualified individual” with a “disability” who suffered an adverse employment action because of that disability. Id. … Examining the record in this matter, although Freeman was clearly qualified for the job which she held for over a year and suffered an adverse employment action by virtue of her termination, there is no evidence from which

H. B. Williams, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

203 F. 140 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1913

The lan *143 guage in the concluding part of the quotation of Judge Hare’s opinion is : “Obviously be who sends a communication is best qualified to judge whether it should be returned for correction. … If he asks the company to repeat the message, and they fail to comply, they will clearly be answerable for any injury that may result from the omission.

WENHOLD v. LEHIGH COUNTY ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2021

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 § … That conclusory allegation is insufficient to plausibly establish that Kruger used excessive force when interacting with Wenhold.

Homel v. Centennial School District

836 F. Supp. 2d 304 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2011

CSD’s failure to promote Homel to superintendent, its placing her on administrative leave, and its termination of her employment, clearly meet the Third Circuit’s definition in Weston of a “significant change in employment … Homel has established the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding why CSD took its actions against Homel.

United States v. Commonwealth of Pa., Dept. of Highways

349 F. Supp. 1370 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1972

State has also denied that this Court has jurisdiction in respect to a suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and avers that as a sovereign state the Commonwealth is immune, without its consent, from suit or from a … Therefore, the identity of the lien- or, the property subject to the lien and the amount of the lien had been established, and there was nothing more to be done to perfect National’s lien against the contract balances.

White v. Brommer

747 F. Supp. 2d 447 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2010

In response to the municipal defendant’s assertion of governmental immunity on Counts IV-VI, plaintiff asserts clearly that he "states these claims only against [defendant] Brommer.” … If [the defendants] intentionally caused [plaintiff's employer] to terminate that contract ... the tort claim has been established.

Vail v. Dermatology and Mohs Surgery Center, P.C. center

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2024

Vail “is clearly insufficient to constitute a protected activity under Title VII.” Defs.’ Mem. at 17. … Vail’s continued practice of dermatology following her separation from AAD, the complaint does not establish that Defendants are entitled to immunity under § 8316(d).

EVANS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2026

To establish a claim under Title II of the ADA, Mr. … Miller must show: “(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

SHIELDS v. EAST LAMPETER TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2025

Even if they could qualify as supplements, those claims would be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915e(2)(B)(i). See Denton v. … Magisterial District Judge Cabry would be entitled to absolute immunity from Shields’ § 1983 claims for damages. See Stump v.

Britax Child Safety, Inc. v. Nuna Int'l B.V.

321 F. Supp. 3d 546 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2018

A court should grant jurisdictional discovery unless "the plaintiff's claim is clearly frivolous." Id. … Prior to its abrogation, "Form 18 'effectively immunize[d] a claimant from attack regarding the sufficiency of the pleading.' " Lyda v. CBS Corp. , 838 F.3d 1331 , 1338 (Fed.