Case law

INTERRANTE v. MERCK & CO., INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

His decision to climb inside the compactor was his and clearly contrary to the explicit instruction of Supervisor Nash, given just moments before. … “Under this framework, a plaintiff bears the burden to prove a prima facie discrimination case by establishing that: she has a disability, she was qualified for an employment position with or without a reasonable

ZARROW

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2026

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to screen the Complaint and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks damages from an immune defendant. … A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v.

J.L. v. LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 26, 2024

And Plaintiffs have not otherwise established that Dr. … Prizant, Plaintiffs have not established that Dr.

BODDY-JOHNSON v. GILMORE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2024

A state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established law if the state court applies a rule of law that differs from the governing rule set forth in Supreme … established law if “the state court identifies the 19 Id. § 636(b)(1); see also E.D.

Hawn v. Pope & Talbot, Inc.

99 F. Supp. 226 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1951

Nevertheless, the problem of proximate cause was clearly discussed in other parts'of the charge, including a point submitted by the defendant and read to the jury. … In talking to the jury, however, the court omitted to state explicitly the conditional words qualifying the jury’s duty to find negligence or unseaworthiness.

United States ex rel. Gohil v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc.

96 F. Supp. 3d 504 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2015

A qui tam relator must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the court has jurisdiction. See Gould, 220 F.3d at 178 (citing Kehr Packages, Inc. v. … Finally, Wilkins clearly established that certifying compliance with the Anti-Kickback Act is a pre-condition to payment for both Medicaid and Medicare, and such false certification is actionable under the FCA.

Bank v. City of Philadelphia

991 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2014

Oct. 14, 1994) (“The established rule of law is that indemnity is unavailable to an intentional tortfeasor .... ”); Canavin v. … As pled, the crossclaim fails to establish that the Foster Defendants may be liable to Century Motors for contribution. 26 *539 IY.

Scott Paper Co. v. United States

943 F. Supp. 489 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1996

Defendant clearly relied upon section 7805(b) when it did not limit the retroactive application of RR 88-98. Moreover, plaintiff stated in its Refund Claim that it based its claim for a refund on RR 88-98. … Moreover, plaintiff argues that the executive privilege is a qualified privilege, which must be weighed against plaintiffs need for the documents.

Ferreri v. First Options of Chicago, Inc.

623 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1985

In any case, plaintiff in this matter had clearly ratified the contract); Hartford Financial Systems v. … In order to qualify for protection under the Pennsylvania Securities Act, Mr.

Hightower v. Easton Area School District

818 F. Supp. 2d 860 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2011

Shoemaker’s alleged consequent discipline, as well as Hightower’s claim based on the Board’s alleged demand that he submit confidential medical information to it before taking FMLA leave. 32 Shoemaker’s reading requirement clearly … In this regard, our Court of Appeals has “specifically found oral reprimands not sufficiently adverse to qualify under the statute.” Weston, 251 F.3d at 430.

Orkin v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2023

He also concedes that the City is immune from liability on the individual tort claims found in Counts VI, VII, and VIII. Id. at 19. … Only conduct that is “extreme and clearly outrageous” establishes a claim; it must “be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

494 F. Supp. 1263 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1980

Under well-established principles concerning implied repeals, our inquiry is two-fold. … The definition of “national treatment” in Article XXII of the Treaty requires that foreign products be treated as favorably as domestic products only “in like situations,” a qualifying phrase of indefinite scope.

KULP v. MIDWEST VETERINARY PARTNERS, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2023

In general, to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position in question; (3) she suffered an adverse … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) [she] is at least forty years old; (2) [she] suffered an adverse employment decision; (3) [she] was qualified for the position in

RICE v. KARASTON

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

As the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. Cons. … . § 8521-22, it and its departments, as well as its officials sued in their official capacities, are immune from suits filed in federal court.

United States v. Premises Known as 2639 Meetinghouse

633 F. Supp. 979 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1986

Gudknecht was not qualified as an expert on tracing proceeds and differentiating between legitimate and illegitimate funds. … Congress has clearly indicated that § 881(a)(6) is a “civil in rem” proceeding rather than a “criminal” sanction.

Schempp v. School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania

177 F. Supp. 398 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1959

that different religions are established equally. … Even more clearly are the rights of the ■parents interfered with. Parents may well wish that their children develop a religious sensibility.

RMJ, Ventures, LLC v. Quakertown Borough, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2026

Because this project was not on the CMP, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants prevented other qualifying projects from being considered for the opportunity to acquire the newly available EDUs. (Id.) … Plaintiff raises the “class of one” theory established by our Supreme Court in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (per curium).

CARTER v. ANGELS OF CARE, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2024

contemplated by the statute” so as to qualify as an employer. … Therefore, Plaintiff’s PWL claim relies solely on whether Defendant Angels of Care qualifies as a “public body.”

ATAIN INSURANCE COMPANY v. XSCAPES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2020

LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c): “judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains … And, damages arising from a contractual disagreement no more qualify as occurrences than do damages arising from faulty workmanship. See Nationwide Mut. Ins.

CONKLIN v. ABEC, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2025

fired because she simply qualified for FMLA. … This supports dismissal of her interference claim as it “is so clearly redundant to the retaliation claim.” Lichtenstein, 691 F.3d at 312 n.25.