Case law

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.

In Re Penn Central Securities Litigation

367 F. Supp. 1158 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1973

Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134 , 88 S.Ct. 1981 , 20 L.Ed.2d 982 (1968), Timken Roller Bearing, supra, Kiefer-Stewart, supra, make it clear that common ownership or control does not provide separately incorporated companies with immunity … Rather, they say, we should permit "qualified representatives" to intervene and "adopt" the class action allegations.

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.

Zerpol Corp. v. DMP Corp.

561 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1983

The text then states that Sid “and others like him” are opening up around the country because they know that there is a shortage of qualified water treatment manufacturers. … At a minimum, Zerpol would also have to establish that DMP, “either intentionally or by want of due care and diligence in ascertaining the true facts,” Clark v.

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.

In re Viropharma Inc. Securities Litigation

21 F. Supp. 3d 458 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2014

In 2006 the FDA changed its position regarding the proof necessary to establish bioequivalence, allowing for laboratory testing instead of testing on human subjects. … Courts in this District have held that omissions of existing facts or circumstances are not forward-looking, and thus do not qualify for safe harbor protection. In re Cell Pathways, Inc. Sec.

WILLIAMS v. SUPERVISOR SHANNON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2023

It is well-established that “liability cannot be predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.” Rode v. … The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for claims sounding in state tort law for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (waiving sovereign immunity to make the United States liable “in the same manner and to the

Hobson v. St. Luke's Hospital & Health Network

735 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2010

Luke’s Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, campus. 8 Plaintiff was qualified for the position, and he always received good performance appraisals and regular salary increases. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that he: (1) is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodations; and (3) was

Overfield v. Pennroad Corp.

48 F. Supp. 1008 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1943

Railroad establish relations “with all of those companies and to share the prosperity of the south”. … of the transactions or to whom such stock thereafter devolved by operation of law; and that the total damages which might otherwise be awarded should be proportionately reduced so as to bar recovery by all persons not so qualified

Flint v. A.P. DeSanno & Sons

234 F. Supp. 2d 506 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2002

In Ryan , we narrowly construed the circumstances that would qualify for Colorado River abstention, emphasizing language in Colorado River that an abstention, even for “considerations of wise *513 judicial administration … The state court clearly obtained jurisdiction before this Court.

VARGAS-MARRERO v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2022

To establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on the conditions of confinement, a prisoner must establish that prison officials’ acts or omissions denied him “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” … Any amended complaint should clearly describe the factual basis for Vargas-Marrero’s claims against the relevant defendant or defendants and how each defendant was involved in the alleged denial of his constitutional

In Re Penn Central Transportation Company

354 F. Supp. 408 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1973

It establishes that the participants, like so many others, relied upon the financial soundness of the Debtor. … all retirees of a reasonably comfortable standard of living; moreover, for the most part, the retirees at the higher end of the scale achieved that position as the result of pre-bankruptcy salary policies which are most clearly

Momah v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

978 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1997

This evidence is insufficient to establish disparate treatment. … A prima facie case is established when a plaintiff has successfully shown (1) that he or she is a member of a protected class, and (2) is qualified for the position but (3) was either not hired or fired from that position

Sherman v. Prudential-Bache Securities Inc.

732 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1989

Green, the Supreme Court stated that a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination by showing “(i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the … Because the record does not clearly establish the basis for Hevner’s statements, the record must be more fully developed in this area.

O'LEARY v. Moyer's Landfill, Inc.

523 F. Supp. 642 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1981

Instead, the focus of the RCRA claim is clearly the allegation that the landfill is an “open dump” (as opposed to a “sanitary landfill”) in which solid, not hazardous, wastes are being treated. … DER, as an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, also argued Eleventh Amendment immunity from this suit. It has not been necessary to reach this issue in view of my disposition of the statutory arguments. 4 .

Federation of Telephone Workers v. Bell Telephone Co.

406 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 1975

The Consent Decree required the companies of the Bell system to develop affirmative action programs for the employment of women and minorities and to establish a variety other procedures related to the employment of women … for review Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the arbitrator’s award are therefore clearly based on what the arbitrator found to be violations of Section 22 of the collective bargaining agreement.

Weissman v. Transcontinental Printing U.S.A. Inc.

205 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2002

See Ivy Mar Co., 907 F.Supp. at 556-58 (setting forth requirements for establishing whether information qualifies as a trade secret); cf. … Nor was there any evidence that Weissman, in soliciting these customers, relied on any good will established during his tenure with TPU.

Communications Workers of America v. AT & T Information Systems, Inc.

780 F. Supp. 1057 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1991

Under the overtime equalization agreements, AT & TIS had agreed, basically, to offer overtime work first to qualified employees who had accrued the fewest cumulative overtime hours. … This Section 301 action clearly finds a close analogy in the reasoning that led the DelCostello Court to borrow Section 10(b) of the NLRA.

Shannon v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

305 F. Supp. 205 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1969

. § 17152 (d) (3) (Supp.1969), and qualified for a rent supplement housing program under that Act (12 U.S.C.A. § 1701s (Supp.1969). … While HUD clearly does expect some sort of overall collaboration between the LPA and affected citizens, Mr.

Glassman v. Township of Falls

547 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1982

Summary judgment is proper only when the record clearly establishes that no genuine issue of material fact remains to be tried and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Poller v. … In addition, the individual defendants, the Solicitor and the Supervisors, are entitled to a qualified immunity which is not enjoyed by the Board or the Township. Owens v.