Case law

Schmalz v. Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.

868 F. Supp. 2d 438 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2012

As a result, the plaintiffs cannot establish damages. … [is] invested primarily in qualifying employer securities.” 29 U.S.C. § 1107 (d)(3)(A).

In re Hawley Down Draft Furnace Co.

256 F. 555 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1919

^The more broadly the substantial facts are stated, the more clearly are these points presented. … The company was established in Chicago. It was proposed to_ bring their entire plant to Faston.

United States v. Bily

406 F. Supp. 726 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1975

While the statements in paragraphs four to eight are probative of infringement, they fall short of establishing a probability of it. … The defendant clearly has failed to carry his burden of proving selective prosecution, which is the sole ground for his motion. United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1973). United States v.

Strite v. McGinnes

215 F. Supp. 513 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1963

This decedent clearly had such additional power. … In order to qualify for the marital deduction, the surviving spouse must have an unqualified power *515 to appoint the principal to herself during her lifetime.

Mehling v. New York Life Insurance

163 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2001

Consequently, Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendants concealed or misrepresented the investment of assets in the MainStay Funds when such information was clearly ascertainable through the Plans’ Form 5500s and the Fund … Three circuit courts have addressed the issue of whether a parent corporation qualifies as a “person associated with a member” under the NASD Code, and all have concluded that the term “person” covers only natural persons

Fleming v. American Stores Co.

42 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1941

The phrase ‘No employer’ certainly may not logically be qualified as meaning ‘no employer who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce’ which is the construction urged by the defendant. … The emphasis in both sections is clearly placed upon the nature of the employee’s work.

GALETTE v. AVENUE 365 LENDING SERVICES LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2024

Galette had no lasting medical problems from the kidney cancer, the COPD and kidney surgery compromised her immune system. … Galette was not qualified to perform the essential functions of the Funding Specialist job in the context of her ADA claims, she likewise cannot satisfy the third element of an ADEA prima facie claim -- that she was qualified

ERRINGTON v. City of Reading d/b/a Reading Police Department

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2025

App’x 137, 143 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[Plaintiff’s] § 1983 claim fails and we need not consider the issue of qualified immunity.” … Since Errington fails to plausibly present a federal question, this Court also does not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

United States v. Greenlee

380 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1974

Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to establish willfulness. … Established law clearly supports the trial court’s decision in this regard. The Supreme Court held in Michelson v.

DECKARD v. ESTATE OF KATHLEEN EMORY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2020

Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1411 (3d Cir. 1991) (outlining the four subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 1962), and does not allege qualifying predicate acts with sufficient particularity. … Salaman and Grunfeld’s Quasi-Judicial Immunity Salaman and Grunfeld contend that they are entitled to immunity for the judicial tasks they undertook as Special Masters pursuant to the orders of the Orphans’

Baksalary v. Smith

579 F. Supp. 218 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1984

any State or territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The parties devoted considerable effort to establishing the rate at which referees find for employees when the employee contests a termination petition involving an automatic supersedeas.

Charter Oak Insurance v. Maglio Fresh Food

979 F. Supp. 2d 581 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2013

qualify for coverage . . . .”_ Oct. 6, 2010 Leonetti’s amended its Complaint. … Furthermore, Maglio ignores that Charter Oak clearly continued to reserve its rights to contest coverage in those same letters.

Welch v. Union Casualty Ins.

238 F. 968 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1917

The petition represents that the commonwealth of Pennsylvania has established a complete system for the regulation and control of insurance companies created by it and operating under its laws, and for the liquidation of … It may be concluded, then, that the pending suit was properly brought in this court, that this court has jurisdiction, and that no fact has been brought to the attention of the court to establish collusion or bad faith or

THE CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PENTAIR COMMERCIAL ICE LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2025

The provision clearly establishes a repose period, with the deadline to file a claim running from the defined completion date, not from any subsequent accrual of a cause of action. … The twelve-year repose period set forth in § 5536 falls squarely within Chapter 55 and is thus clearly governed by § 5501(a).

MATUTE v. THOMAS E. STRAUSS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2025

The provision clearly establishes a repose period, with the deadline to file a claim running from the defined completion date, not from any subsequent accrual of a cause of action. … The twelve-year repose period set forth in § 5536 falls squarely within Chapter 55 and is thus clearly governed by § 5501(a).

CIGAR ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2020

For a court to find implied preemption, “the General Assembly must clearly evidence its intent to preempt.” Hoffman Min. Co., Inc. v. … Angelides, those damages will still constitute irreparable injury because of the City’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

ESTATE OF CLARA T. TROILO v. ROSE TREE PLACE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2023

A defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal jurisdiction is proper. Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990). … According to DHHS guidance, COVID-19 diagnostic tests approved by the FDA fall within the Act’s definition of a “qualified pandemic or epidemic product.” 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(i)(7); see Advisory Opinion on The Public Readiness

LEVITT v. United States

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2022

This waiver of immunity is not without bounds. … Although plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that their claim falls within the FTCA, the Government bears the burden of establishing that the challenged conduct falls within the discretionary function exception.

Valenti v. Mitchell

790 F. Supp. 551 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1992

It was the legislature’s responsibility to set these boundaries and establish the election schedule. U.S. … If anything, the March 10, 1992, Order challenged here, is more clearly outside the judicial realm than the December 19, 1990, Order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In Re the Complaint of J.E. Brenneman Co.

277 F. Supp. 2d 518 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2003

Legislative policy is here expressed in a clear cut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions.” Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. … Although this question appears to be one of first impression in this circuit, our Court of Appeals has established rules which this court must follow when engaging in statutory interpretation.