Case law

GORMAN v. ACETEON NETWORKS, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 2021

Plaintiff argues that she has established a prima facie case of disability discrimination on the grounds that (a) her shoulder injury rendered her disabled under the ADA at the time of her termination, (b) she was qualified … Qualified The next step in establishing a prima facie case of disability discrimination requires plaintiff to show that she was qualified to perform her job at the time of

Kedra v. Nazareth Hospital

868 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1994

court explicitly directed litigants to Justice Nix’s concurring statement in Clay , in which he wrote: [T]his Court did not announce a cause of action for wrongful discharge in Geary . [ ... ] Indeed the language in Geary clearly … No. 100-259, § 4 , 1988 U.S.S.C.A.N. (102 Stat.) 28, 29-30 (1988), it is well-established that § 504 creates an implied private right of action.

Ray Angelini, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

984 F. Supp. 873 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1997

Angelini has failed to establish that Defendants Rendell and Cohen had any involvement in the actions complained of in their complaint. 3. … These requirements have been clearly satisfied in this instance.

GIBSON v. TIP TOWING AND RECOVERY, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 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. … As the plaintiff, Gibson bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v.

Association of American Medical Colleges v. Mikaelian

571 F. Supp. 144 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1983

in registering and thus establishing a copyright for each of its test questions. … Based on the evidence presented at the hearing and the applicable law, AAMC has clearly shown a reasonable prob *154 ability of eventual success in this litigation.

MILLER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2024

Third, Wolk argues he is entitled to qualified immunity here because (1) “Plaintiffs cannot establish on the record evidence that [Wolk] violated Miller’s Fourteenth Amendment rights or Fourth Amendment rights,” and (2 … immunity here.

Sullivan v. Warminster Township

274 F.R.D. 147 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2011

Plaintiffs argue that Boyle’s report does not qualify for protection as attorney work product because it was not prepared in anticipation of litigation. (Pls.’ Mot. 22-24.) … In contrast, the engagement letter clearly anticipates that litigation would likely result from the shooting.

WILLIAMS v. RUSSELL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2022

Pennnsylvania law speaks clearly on this subject. Under 42 Pa. Cons. … As such, the state law claims against Henning must also be dismissed under PSTCA’s immunity. 2.

CLARK v. ALBRIGHT COLLEGE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2022

“A general complaint of unfair treatment is insufficient to establish protected activity.” Id. … The reasons we surmise from Clark’s pleading for his alleged harassment clearly do not qualify as the type of prohibited basis contemplated under the statutes.

Rock v. Voshell

397 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2005

The exception to the parol evidence rule set forth in Byler was qualified, however, one year later in LeDonne v. … The defects complained of are clearly covered by the broad terms of the release agreed to by Plaintiffs in ¶25 of the Agreement of Sale.

Gouveia v. Vokes

800 F. Supp. 241 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 1992

Gouveia “clearly was in Portugal during the time when some of the activity with regard to the crime were [sic] occurring,” Gouveia’s Memorandum of Law at 4, he nonetheless contends that our inquiry must establish that he … There clearly was, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3184 , “the evidence of criminality” that is required for extradition.

In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation

240 F.R.D. 163 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2007

Beyer has clearly done so and that we should consider his statements. *172 Dr. … Plaintiffs’ claimed end date is clearly tied to the European Union charges on January 31, 2005, and is, therefore, reasonable. VI.

Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. v. Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference

155 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1957

However, the evidence in this case clearly indicates that Dr. *781 Sly was working in the interest of the railroads. … The caption of the bills clearly indicates that the printing houses and newspaper services regarded Hardy as. a member of the Grange.

AEL Industries, Inc. v. Loral Fairchild Corp.

882 F. Supp. 1477 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1995

AEL’s careful focus on these analyses strongly suggests that, had AEL believed that CDRLs A039 and A040 should be limited in scope, AEL would have alerted Loral to this conclusion by qualifying its bid proposal. … Wirth Ltd., 592 F.2d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 1979) (“New York law ... clearly places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff’).

BINGHAM v. CITY OF READING, PA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2021

First, though he names the City of Reading as a Defendant, it is clearly the conduct of the Common Pleas Court located in Reading at issue in his Complaint. … Additionally, it has been well established for over 150 years that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases concerning divorce, alimony, or child custody cases. Ankenbrandt v.

SHERMOT v. BUCCI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2020

Pa. 2011) (“Court appointed counsel, especially one serving as a guardian ad litem, does not qualify as a state actor for purposes of § 1983.”). … alleged that the parties are diverse for purposes of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction over any state law claims she intends to pursue. IV.

Fleet v. United States Consumer Council, Inc. (In Re Fleet)

95 B.R. 319 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1989

Contrary to the its advertisements, USCC could not consolidate and erase most any debt, and the initial consultation was clearly not free. 13 Cf. … This hardly qualifies as an initial consultation.

ROSELLI v. SMITH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2020

A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court “applies a rule different from the governing law,” or decides a case differently on “materially indistinguishable facts.” Bell v. … Unreasonable application of clearly established federal law occurs when the court correctly identifies the governing legal principle but “unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.”

United States v. Frumento

426 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1976

The Government’s evidence was clearly sufficient to establish that the activities of the Bureau affect interstate commerce. All cigarettes consumed in Pennsylvania are produced in other states. [N.T. 2-24.] … There is no doubt that the Government’s evidence more clearly enmeshed Frumento and Millhouse in the illegal scheme than Sills.

RICHARDSON v. UNITED STATES

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

First Nat'l State Bank of N.J., 879 F.2d 1186, 1194 (3d Cir.1989) (“Because the Federal Tort Claims Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Act's established procedures have been strictly construed.”); see … It is impossible, and indeed would be irresponsible on our part, to create an exhaustive list of qualifying relationships in this opinion.