Case law

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.

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.

United States v. Fattah

223 F. Supp. 3d 336 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2016

Merely setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or contacting, calling, or speaking with another public official, without more, does not qualify as an official act. See id. at 2372. … This was established.

TALBERT v. DELBALSO

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

. § 2254, limits a district court’s review to whether a state court’s adjudication was the product of an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts … Talbert fails to show that the state courts’ resolution of his claim was a result of an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Mattern v. Weinberger

377 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1974

Plaintiff was found qualified by the Social Security Administration to receive disabled widow’s insurance benefits on the social security record of her deceased husband. … The Court in Fuentes clearly rejected the narrow interpretation that the Secretary urges us to adopt, holding: “. . .

Fox v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

468 F. Supp. 907 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1979

Plaintiffs will easily establish that persons were displaced to areas other than Washington Square West. … The objectors complain that the community’s freedom was unjustly infringed when the parties settled upon 131 units; however, although the PAC’s options were limited, the parties were clearly within their rights when they

SAUNDERS v. RT & RT MANORS LLC, LANDLORD

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2025

. § 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 Ben. Life Co. v.

United States v. Nolan-Cooper

957 F. Supp. 647 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1997

Nolan-Cooper’s qualified for the initial adjustment and her adjusted offense level is twenty-four, she meets the threshold requirements. … Indeed, Application Note 6 to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 observes that, as compared to conduct qualifying for the initial two level downward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a), “[i]n general, the conduct qualifying for a decrease

U. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 2023

The question of whether imposition of these safety plans violated Plaintiffs’ due process rights arose in the context of qualified immunity. … As to substantive due process, the court ruled against the Plaintiffs on the merits, but with respect to the threshold issue relevant to my analysis here, held that Plaintiffs properly identified a clearly established

Donnelly v. Kutztown Area Transport Service, Inc.

198 F. Supp. 3d 499 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2016

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 … Detroit Entm’t, L.L.C., 428 F.3d 629 , 637 (6th Cir.2005) (stating that “[w]here private security guards are endowed by law with plenary police powers such that they are de facto police officers, they may qualify as state

Kalman v. Cortes

723 F. Supp. 2d 766 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2010

The Establishment Clause Plaintiff contends that the Blasphemy Statute violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. … Third, the term “profanes the Lord’s name” clearly has religious meaning.

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.

Rosario v. American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

395 F. Supp. 1192 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1975

The United States Public Health Service is clearly a federal agency. 42 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and § 233 (1974). 9. … In the instant case, the Long Beach Memorial Hospital and its emergency room physician who examined plaintiff on June 7, 1970, clearly acted at that time on behalf of the United States Public Health Service at San Pedro.

Mbagwu v. PPA Taxi & Limousine Division

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2023

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action … July 27, 2006) (plaintiff has the burden of establishing an illegal policy at the summary judgment phase).

ACEVEDO v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2024

Acevedo alleges that no hearing was held to establish a prima facie case. (Id.) … “[W]hether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity depends on whether she establishes that she was functioning as the state’s ‘advocate’ while engaging in the alleged conduct that gives rise to the constitutional

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Dunlavey

197 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2001

If the criminal proceedings did not establish the extent, if any, of his conscious awareness of the insured’s action or the substantial likelihood of the results, the conviction cannot conclusively establish a bar to recovery … Maschal would attack him again before he could see clearly, Mr. Dunlavey “swung at her” with his helmet. Id. at 56:12-16.

In Re Providian Financial Corp. Securities Litigation

152 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 5, 2001

Id. (5) Providian promised prospective customers cash rewards of up to $200 for transferring balances, but failed to disclose adequately that a certain minimum balance must be transferred in order to qualify for the reward … Furthermore, having adequately established Mehta and Petrini’s knowledge or recklessness, the SAC also adequately establishes recklessness on the part of Providian as an entity. IV.

Kohr v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

522 F. Supp. 1070 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1981

In reaching this decision, we are not immune to the considerable appeal which the dual capacity doctrine possesses, nor are we unmindful of the seeming inequity of the law in permitting those workers injured by exposure to … Equally important are the additional precedents cited to or independently discovered by the Panel establishing that at least six state courts and three federal courts have rejected the dual capacity doctrine (p. 1075). [1

Pine Creek Valley Watershed Assoc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

97 F. Supp. 3d 590 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2015

To be sure, “Congress has waived [sovereign] immunity in § 1365(a)(2) only for suits alleging a failure of the Administrator to perform a non-discretionary duty.” Sierra Club v. … Clearly, Act 41 is not. a “water quality standard,” let alone a revised or new one, as that term is defined by the relevant EPA regulations.

CONTOUR DATA SOLUTIONS LLC v. GRIDFORCE ENERGY MANAGEMENT LLC

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

We know that, clearly, Gridforce thought it had value. They took it, so clearly it has economic value. … has created an IT system like this one contradicts his own deposition testimony stating that he has seen similar systems used elsewhere.49 Contour responds that Bohn “clearly