Case law

Stern v. AAA Mid-Atlantic Insurance

147 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2015

almost verbatim contractual language reading, “we will pay damages. . .for bodily injury which an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured auto,” as follows: This phrase clearly … Therefore, a defendant without a statutory entitlement to PIP benefits cannot insist that an injured plaintiff prove a qualifying injury within one of the six categories set forth in N.J.S.A, 39:6A-8(a), even though the plaintiff

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).

Home Box Office, Inc. v. Spectrum Electronics, Inc.

100 F.R.D. 379 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 1983

Spec-tor undertook to clarify or qualify the applicability of Mr. Tinaglia’s statements to Spectrum’s sales. … Since additional time would be necessary in which to discuss and draft an appropriate letter of protest, neither the December 3 letter nor the date of the letter of protest from HBO’s New York counsel establishes that HBO

Pennsylvania Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania

343 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 1972

. *291 The record in this case clearly shows that the Commonwealth did not collaborate with the plaintiffs in bringing or conducting this suit. … the standards for hours of instruction, pupil-teacher ratios, curriculum, facilities, and teacher qualifications that shall be met in programs administered by the Department of Public Welfare; (b) the standards which will qualify

PORTER v. MERAKEY USA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2022

Plaintiff was undisputedly qualified for the FFS position. SOF ¶ 47; RSOF ¶ 47. … Thus, to establish a prima facie case, Plaintiff must show: “(1) [he] is a disabled person within the meaning of the [ADA]; (2) [he] is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without

HALLOCK v. MERCK & CO., INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2020

of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The following events all clearly occurred before February 4, 2018 so that any claim relating to them is out of time: (1) in 2012, plaintiff

THOMPSON v. COMMAND ALKON INCORPORATED

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2023

Hobbs, 99 F.3d 307, 312-13 (9th Cir, 1996) (concluding that a plan qualified as a top hat plan under ERISA where only one employee was covered because he numerically qualified as a “select group” of employees); cf Koenig … Clearly, they do. Generally, “breach of contract principles, applied as a matter of federal law, govern” claims for benefits due under an ERISA plan.

ORTIZ v. AMAZON

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

“‘Policy is made when a decisionmaker possess[ing] final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action issues an official proclamation, policy, or edict.’” Estate of Roman v. … Ortiz conclusorily alleges that unconstitutional policies, and a failure to train and hire qualified individuals existed at PICC. (ECF No. 14 at 3.)

Stelwagon Manufacturing Co. v. Tarmac Roofing System, Inc.

862 F. Supp. 1361 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1994

Remittitur is appropriate if the Court “finds that a decision of the jury is clearly unsupported and/or excessive.” Spence v. Board of Educ. of Christina Sch. Dist., 806 F.2d 1198 , 1201 (3d Cir.1986); see 11 Charles A. … Perry to be qualified, without objection, as an expert in economics and price discrimination analysis. See Tr. of 12/16/93, at 51-52. Review of Dr.

718 Arch Street Associates, Ltd. v. Blatstein (In Re Blatstein)

226 B.R. 140 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1998

Presently, his establishments in Philadelphia include Philly Rock, the Engine 46 Steakhouse, and the Maui nightclub. … This conduct is clearly inequitable conduct which greatly unfairly disadvantaged Main’s creditors.

Mikkelsen v. A Cargo of Sugar

248 F. 807 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1918

These words have an established meaning in construing charter party contracts. … Along with these rights he assumes certain obligations, or at least his rights are qualified by those of the carrier.

IN RE: BERWYN STONE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2023

The litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must establish that the litigant is unable to pay the costs of suit. See Walker v. … As with a section 1983 municipal liability claim based upon a policy or custom, Stone has not included any allegations in the amended complaint that would qualify as a plausible section 1983 failure-to-train claim.

In Re Lloyd Securities, Inc.

183 B.R. 386 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1995

Accordingly, Congress established SIPC, a non-profit, private corporation to which most registered broker-dealers must belong. 15 U.S.C. § 78ece. … Thus, in considering whether one qualifies for allowances under SIPA, a court must decide whether the substance of the application complies “with the provisions of Title 11 governing applications for allowances under such

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.

Bamba v. Elwood

252 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2003

If, as petitioner argues, admission is required in order to authorize expedited removal as an aggravated felon, § 1228(b) would be a nullity— no alien would qualify for expedited removal. … The Court concludes that § 1228(b) clearly applies to an alien in petitioner’s circumstances. There is no basis in law for concluding that the statute does not apply to parolees.

Armes v. City of Philadelphia

706 F. Supp. 1156 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1989

The Court rejected this position, stating, “[s]uch an argument could be made with respect to almost every retail and service establishment in the county, regardless of size or location. … Because I find that the plaintiffs’ rights were not violated, I do not reach the issue of whether the City has qualified immunity. 10 .

Kaplan v. Chertoff

481 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2007

First, the remedy that Defendants point to is clearly not adequate. … Thus, an agency’s mandatory duty to act may be expressed in a single statute or from several Congressional enactments which, read together, clearly imply a mandatory duty.

United States ex rel. Mann v. Mazurkiewicz

316 F. Supp. 1041 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 1970

United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960) the Supreme Court related the applicable standing requirements in the language of Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, namely, to qualify … The above cited language clearly demonstrates the Court’s views concerning the extension of Fourth Amendment protection to those whose rights were not actually violated by a search and seizure.

JONES v. EASTERN AIRLINES, LLC

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

As indicated above, like the EFMLEA, the FFCRA clearly provides for a sunset date for EPSLA coverage, but not an effective date. … We come to this conclusion after careful consideration of: (1) the overall purpose of the FFCRA as well as its provisions for a clearly defined sunset date but not a clearly defined effective date; (2) the Secretary’

Sellers v. Local 1598, District Council 88, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees

600 F. Supp. 1205 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1984

In construing the second requirement, the Supreme Court held that “the language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial or perhaps otherwise … Case law has clearly established the principal that the government may not force a public employee to relinquish their right to political association as the price of holding a public job. Perry v.