Case law

Gould Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.

822 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 1993

Clearly, the plaintiff has incurred liability for ABM’s illegal dumping. … To qualify as an occurrence, the damage must result from an accident that the insured neither expected nor intended.

P.H. Glatfelter Co. v. Lewis

746 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 1990

The foregoing section clearly states that taxes are due and are to be fully paid at the time and place wherein the tax return is properly and timely filed. … Plaintiff, however, avers that Ecusta may have qualified to do business in that State, thus, it filed a Georgia tax return and paid $71,150.

Bass v. Butler

224 F. Supp. 2d 950 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2002

of WCJ Rosen did not deprive Bass of a fair adjudication by a qualified fact-finder.” … Plaintiff in the instant casé clearly had standing when her federal action was filed.

MEIGS v. CARE PROVIDERS INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC

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

Under this framework, to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position in question … To establish a FMLA retaliation claim, which is assessed under the McDonnell Douglas framework at the summary judgment stage, “the plaintiff must prove that (1) she invoked her right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) she suffered

Stein v. Cortés

223 F. Supp. 3d 423 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2016

Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315 , 61 S.Ct. 1031 , 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941) (light to vote includes right of “qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted”). … Shamos clearly and credibly explained that suggestions of foreign hacking influencing the 2016 Election—including President Obama’s December 9 referral of such hacking for investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency—related

Da Rosa Silva v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

263 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 8, 2003

Thus, Silva’s 1999 shoplifting conviction is clearly a crime of moral turpitude. … The alien may qualify if he or she is: the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney

Robertson-Armstrong v. Robinson Helicopter Co.

18 F. Supp. 3d 627 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2014

At the time of the relocation Avco also filed papers with the Rhode Island Secretary of State to qualify the corporation to do business in that state. … The critical issue before us is whether Avco has met its burden of proof to establish that its principal place of business is in a state other than Pennsylvania.

P.V. v. School District of Philadelphia

289 F.R.D. 227 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2013

However, plaintiffs are not required to establish the validity of their claims at this stage. … The systemic challenge to the School District’s process of upper-leveling autistic students is clearly the central issue to all claims.

Strauss v. Springer

817 F. Supp. 1211 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

The record clearly indicates Dr. … Fed.R.Evid. 702 — Testimony by Experts states: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an

Bonneville International Corp. v. Peters

153 F. Supp. 2d 763 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2001

The new limited copyright did not include a public performance right, as it was clearly limited to the direct reproduction of the sounds of the original recording. … Plaintiffs argue that an AM/FM broadcaster streaming its broadcast over the Internet clearly falls into the category of one engaging in a “nonsubscription broadcast transmission.”

Colangelo v. Albert

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2025

Delfin-Colina, 464 F.3d 392, 398 (3d Cir. 2006) (“fA]n officer need not be factually accurate in her belief that a traffic law had been violated but, instead, need only produce facts establishing that she reasonably … These definitions are clearly irrelevant. Furthermore, they do not create any cause of action, Any claim purportedly brought under this definitional section must be dismissed.

GAYLE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 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. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015).

Chips 'N Twigs, Inc. v. Chip-Chip, Ltd.

414 F. Supp. 1003 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 1976

For this reason the fact that Chip-Chip might be financially able to respond in damages to any judgment ultimately rendered against it does not render it immune from a preliminary injunction. … Though a preliminary injunction is clearly warranted, the competing equities between the parties in this case requires that it be tailored with precision.

DANIELS

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

Here, Daniels’ administrative claim was clearly limited to the surgery itself. Specifically, he asserted the surgery was performed improperly because two misplaced screws were used rather than one. … Establishing the second factor nearly always requires medical expert testimony to establish the standard of care. Id.; see Miville v. Abington Mem’l Hosp., 377 F. Supp. 2d 488, 491 n.2 (E.D.

Sweet Street Desserts, Inc. v. Chudleigh's Ltd.

69 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2014

This is clearly a functional aspect of the product. 7. The folds were just a pretty way to finish the top (id. ¶ 123). … The Court reasoned that "[s]ince Noerr-Pennington immunity is 'based' on ‘First Amendment principles,’ Cheminor Drugs, Ltd. v.

MCDOWELL v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2023

. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), because McDowell’s claims were barred by absolute judicial immunity. See McDowell v. Robreno, No. 22-4404, 2022 WL 17487736, at *2 (E.D. Pa. … “A dismissal under the in forma pauperis statute . . . qualifies as an adjudication on the merits carrying preclusive effect for purposes of any future in forma pauperis actions raising the same claim.”

Garrett v. Hoffman

441 F. Supp. 1151 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 1977

In 1976 Deirdre, then a resident of Florida, brought an action against James in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, which resulted in a default judgment that (1) established the Alabama divorce decree as a judgment … Plaintiff contends that 42 U.S.C. § 659 , which waived the United States’ sovereign immunity and allowed writs of garnishment to reach funds held by the United States, is unconstitutional as applied to him.

JOHNSON v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2022

amend) a tax return, protest the Service’s assessment of the tax return, and attend an appeals conference to show he exhausted all administrative remedies.26 The taxpayer must, at the very least, file a tax return to qualify … Johnson to timely amend his complaint if he can do so in good faith to establish exhaustion. 1 ECF Doc.

ALBERT EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. Leavitt

631 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2007

The Administrator found that the transfer of assets did not qualify as a bona fide sale as required by paragraph (f)(2). (A.R. 26-27). … The Administrator’s requirement that a transaction qualify as a bona fide sale is reasonable and consistent with the language of the Medicare regulations.

Colangelo v. Hutchinson

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2025

Delfin-Colina, 464 F.3d 392, 398 (3d Cir. 2006) (“fA]n officer need not be factually accurate in her belief that a traffic law had been violated but, instead, need only produce facts establishing that she reasonably … These definitions are clearly irrelevant. Furthermore, they do not create any cause of action, Any claim purportedly brought under this definitional section must be dismissed.