Case law

HARTZELL v. ADAPTABLE SYSTEMS CORP.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 2022

Defense counsel is the only one playing “fast and loose with the Court,” and this clearly misplaced judicial estoppel argument leads the Court to question both his candor and his credibility. See 204 Pa. … In Piotrowski, the plaintiff, who had Type-1 diabetes and a suppressed immune system, requested leave from his employer under the EPSLA. Id. at *1.

MEDINA v. LITTLE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2023

immunity finding an incarcerated person’s right to medical privacy is not clearly established.152 Mr. … Gomez, 745 F.3d 405, 432 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s denial of qualified immunity, finding, "[O]fficers trained to administer CPR who nonetheless did not do so despite an obvious need demonstrated the

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.

Romero v. Allstate Insurance

1 F. Supp. 3d 319 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2014

This ruling meant that the continued participation of independent contractors in Allstate’s tax-qualified employee benefit plans could have resulted in those plans losing their tax-qualified status. … The Third Circuit’s ruling as to the scope of the Release in this matter was clearly not dicta.

Sweeney v. Standard Insurance

276 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2003

The notes clearly show that Plaintiffs condition improved in response to psychological and medical treatment. Chart notes from Dr. Yermak, Dr. Primelo, and Ms. … Defendant points to sufficient evidence in the record to establish that the denial of benefits was not arbitrary or capricious as a matter of law.

Aamco Automatic Transmissions, Inc. v. Tayloe

368 F. Supp. 1283 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1973

P. 12(b)(6), the court must begin with the well-settled principle established in Conley v. … Consequently, the activities qualified as the type of “minimum contacts” which would “make it reasonable and just according to our traditional, conception of fair play and substantial justice” to subject defendant to the

Newton v. United Companies Financial Corp.

24 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1998

This written application clearly states that the Suttons were seeking $7,488 for home improvement financing. They did not request any additional credit. … She met United’s credit and income guidelines to qualify for credit in her name alone. Tr. Day 4, p. 129. 105.

The Limited, Inc. v. Cigna Ins. Co.

228 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2002

COVERAGE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM UNDER THE POLICY Plaintiff contends that the Policy clearly and unambiguously provides coverage'for its losses because its Foam Burst product was adulterated, and that the adulteration was unintentional … Therefore, even with consideration of the Act’s definition of “adulteration,” the Foam Burst product does not qualify as having been adulterated. 2 The Court is further convinced that the term “adulteration” in the Policy

American Trade Partners, L.P. v. A-1 International Importing Enterprises, Ltd.

757 F. Supp. 545 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 1991

ATP alleges a clearly defined organizational structure and a continuity of associates that survived the Cassidys’ departure. … This is, then, an adequate pleading to establish personal liability and defendants’ argument to the contrary is rejected.

WOODS v. SEPTA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2023

. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the Court to screen and dismiss the SAC if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. … In general, to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position in question; (3) he suffered an adverse

United National Insurance v. Indian Harbor Insurance

160 F. Supp. 3d 828 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2016

Part I clearly establishes that the policy insures Penn-America for wrongful acts, and Exclusion (H) confirms that coverage. … Further, even if Romoff were qualified to testify on Penn-America’s intent at the Jackson settlement, her testimony is not relevant to allocation.

Lukens Steel Co. v. Kreps

477 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1979

These improvements would be designed to lower unit costs, and to permit firms to re-establish prior levels of production on a profitable basis. 2. … and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Aetna Life Insurance v. Huntingdon Valley Surgery Center

129 F. Supp. 3d 160 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2015

Aetna thus seems to claim implicitly that, the General Assembly intended to distinguish between what qualifies as a health care provider in a criminal case and what qualifies as one in a civil case. … It claims that this limited definition would mean that "any person or entity could operate a medical facility illegally in Pennsylvania by failing to procure a license, yet be immune from liability for insurance fraud and

Malmed v. Thornburgh

478 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1979

Exhibit P-8 sets forth the rules which establish a detailed procedure for a formal hearing where it is warranted. … Similarly, the plaintiffs do not qualify as a suspect class. See San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 1278 , 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973).

Brenner v. State Board of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers & Salesmen

413 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1976

A claim may be plainly insubstantial “either because it is ‘obviously without merit’ or because ‘its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of [the Supreme Court] as to foreclose the subject and leave … of the State acting as a sovereign,” the court noted: We read Goldfarb as holding that, absent state authority which demonstrates that it is the intent of the state to restrain competition in a given area, Parker -type immunity

HARNER v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2021

“[T]o establish a prima facie case, Plaintiff must show: (1) that he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable … (“Plaintiff clearly has difficulty comprehending and processing information, and thus expressing himself verbally.”). This, too, does not create a genuine issue of material fact. Cf. Plouffe v.

FINIZIE v. MCDONOUGH

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

Finizie’s unsupported subjective belief the Department did not hire her for retaliatory reasons falls short of establishing pretext.66 An employee cannot establish pretext by claiming they were more qualified for the … Finizie does not clearly articulate how the Department discriminated against her based on her age.

NEWTON

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

Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings is well- established.”). B. … 2021) (permitting claim against defendant in his individual capacity to proceed even though “[plaintiff] did not check the box indicating a desire to sue [that defendant] in his individual capacity” where the allegations clearly

Bumpus v. Uniroyal Tire Co. Division of Uniroyal, Inc.

385 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1974

The trial date was clearly known more than one month in advance. … There would be very few cases upon which a Judge would be qualified to sit if this were ground for recusation.” 1 .

Curtis v. Robern, Inc.

819 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1993

Factual and Legal Analysis In closing argument, Robern’s counsel conceded that Curtis established a prima facie case under the ADEA. … On examining the record as a whole,, Curtis has carried his burden of establishing pretext.