Case law

Eastern Electric Corp. v. Shoemaker Construction Co.

657 F. Supp. 2d 545 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2009

A number of factors do not establish a sufficient amount of prejudice against the plaintiff to open a default judgment. … The Contract. and the Sub-Job Agreement clearly fall within the CASPA, and thus Shoemaker is entitled to interest, penalty interest, attorney’s fees and expenses because of 1419 Tower and Urban Residential’s failure to pay

GORRIO v. TERRA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2023

You are not qualified to perform a surgery and it could result in an infection.” … “[A] particular vulnerability to suicide qualifies as a serious medical need,” Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 227 (3d Cir. 2017).

United States v. Andrews

811 F. Supp. 2d 1158 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2011

Clearly, they can have accidents, bipolar individuals, because of their impulsivity can have accidents and their bad judgment and their other impairments. … Uram stated: When she’s in an episode, she qualifies for a severe extreme of the disorder.

Christ's Bride Ministries, Inc. v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

937 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 1996

The mere fact that government property is used for expressive activity does not qualify it as a public forum. … Section IV of the TDI-CBM contract clearly provides for the termination of the contract: b.

Stouch v. Brothers of the Order of Hermits

836 F. Supp. 1134 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1993

, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms). … In order to establish a pruna facie case, Slouch must show that he: (1) belongs to a protected class (i.e. is over forty years of age); (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was dismissed despite being qualified; and (4

Bunnion v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

108 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1999

As to most of the above-named plans, we have no evidence before us as to then-terms and precisely why plaintiffs would qualify as employees under them. … To prove a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, plaintiffs must establish that: (1) they were over 40 years of age; (2) they were qualified for the positions at issue; (3) they suffered an adverse employment

Mustang Transportation Co. v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.

523 F. Supp. 1097 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1981

Therefore, applying the three-part test for a borrowed servant set forth in the Six Flags case, Crowder does not qualify as a borrowed servant of Ryder under Georgia law. … Clearly this language is susceptible of no meaning other than that the lessor was to indemnify the lessee for all losses sustained by it and resulting from its operation and use of the equipment, whether caused by the lessee

Hannah Williams v. Bucks County Children & Youth Services, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2025

Any amended complaint must clearly describe the factual basis for Williams’s claims and how the claims relate to the named Defendants. … A failure “to establish either of the first two considerations – probability of success on the merits and irreparable harm – forecloses such relief.” Erie Indem. Co., 2025 WL 2909012, at *8.

Nedler v. Vaisberg

427 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2006

The Court need not decide whether defendants’ argument fails for not properly asserting it under Rule 12(b)(1) because defendants’ argument is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent. In Smith v. … The Court need not resolve the tension because Haldane is clearly inapposite to the facts presented in this case. 6 .

Brogan v. La Salle University

70 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1999

Brogan’s Prima Facie Case In order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; 24 (2) he was qualified for *564 the position; and (3) he … That is, his male sex and that he was qualified to be Chair of the political science department. 27 .

United States v. Green

373 F. Supp. 149 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1974

Through testimony and exhibits, the following uncontroverted facts were established. … A review of the voir dire clearly reveals that the jurors were not prejudiced by the pre-trial publicity because they simply did not recall the hijacking.

Home Insurance v. McGovern

837 F. Supp. 661 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 1993

The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws establishes the following general principles to be applied in tort actions: § 145. … McGovern as a “owner” of the car in this case fails the clearly worded test.

MCCLENDON v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2023

retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link. … The District is not entitled to immunity on McClendon’s contract claim.

King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.

309 F.R.D. 195 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2015

Leitzinger to establish antitrust impact for the class using common evidence. Dr. … I agree that the class definition is clearly defined.

BATCHLER v. SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2024

App’x. 211, 215 (3d Cir. 2016) (affirming district court’s denial of habeas where petitioner’s “colloquy indicated clearly that he did not wish to call other witnesses”). … To qualify for this exception, Plaintiff must show “1) his procedurally defaulted ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim has some merit and 2) his state-post conviction counsel was ineffective under the standards

NELSON v. GOBRANDS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 2021

It is clearly contrary to public policy to immunize large corporations from liability by allowing them to preclude all class action litigation or [] arbitration. … Plaintiffs also fail to present evidence or argument to establish substantive unconscionability.8 (Id.)

ELMEGREEN v. MERCK & CO., INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2021

Zostavax is not designed to produce immunity by causing a mild case of shingles but rather to prevent shingles by effecting immunity before an outbreak of shingles takes place. … the subject plaintiff.2 Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that: A witness who is qualified

Philadelphia Training Center Corp. v. Georgia

822 F. Supp. 239 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 1993

PTC contends that the mandatory language in this section that a LLR “shall” make FSLs to students who are “otherwise unable to obtain loans” clearly expresses Congress’ intent that LLRs such as Georgia must make FSLs to students … [the Stafford Loan Program and] to establish minimum standards with respect to sound management and accountability of ...

DOMAN v. MERCK & CO INC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2021

Zostavax is not designed to produce immunity by causing a mild case of shingles but rather to prevent shingles by effecting immunity before an outbreak of shingles takes place. … the subject plaintiff.2 Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that: A witness who is qualified

Walter v. Palisades Collection, LLC

480 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2007

Clearly, any actions taken by Mr. Walter or his counsel to initiate or litigate the case sub judice cannot form the basis for RICO liability. … Whether reliance is necessary to establish proximate cause continues to be unsettled law.