Case law

Colangelo v. PA State Police Avondale

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.

Black Grievance Committee v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

615 F. Supp. 1069 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1985

The Consent Decree provides for training classes for minorities interested in taking aptitude and trade qualifying tests. … The plaintiffs obtained an agreement from PECO to establish a career counseling function to review career paths open to any employee and to encourage qualified employees to pursue their individual goals.

ROMAN v. COUNTY OF CHESTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2023

If a party fails to establish likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm—what the Third Circuit has referred to as the “gateway factors” of this test—then the Court need not consider whether all four factors … Nevertheless, Prison officials are warned that if Roman’s account is true, a longer delay may qualify as unreasonable or suggest that the delay may be occurring for non-medical reasons. See, e.g. Monmouth Cnty. Corr.

Augustin v. City of Philadelphia

171 F. Supp. 3d 404 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2016

Standards for Summary Judgment Motions The principles guiding the determination of motions for summary judgment are clearly articulated in Fed. R. Civ. … 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

CORBIN v. FRENCH

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

Corbin’s claims in this case are clearly based on the same series of events at issue in his prior case, which was largely dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). … As the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. Cons.

Colangelo v. Franck

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.

SADLER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 2026

Pa. 2017) (dismissing disability discrimination claim where “Plaintiff has not clearly alleged the requirements of his position, the nature of his disability, or that he was otherwise qualified for his position despite … that [s]he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’

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.”

Bromhall v. Rorvik

478 F. Supp. 361 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1979

In order to qualify for protection under state law, a property interest in an *367 idea, technique or method must relate to a concept which is novel, new and concrete. Thomas v. R. J. … Invasion of Privacy Section 652A of the Restatement of Torts 2d establishes four categories of invasions of the right of privacy which are actionable: unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another (§ 652B); appropriation

Children's Hospital v. Secretary of Department of Public Welfare

568 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1983

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania participates in the Medicaid program established by Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq. … Clearly, subsection (a) is referring to originally submitted assurances.

BARGER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2020

Next, “[i]f the movant establishes with sufficient evidence that the proof of claim overvalues a creditor’s secured claim because the collateral is of insufficient value, the burden shifts. … But the Bankruptcy Court declined to qualify them. It did, however, qualify Appellee’s expert, real estate broker Christopher J.

P.P. Ex Rel. Michael P. v. West Chester Area School District

557 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2008

Levisohn opined that P.P. qualified for special education under the classifications of Learning Disabled and Mentally Gifted. (F.F. 43.) The District did not challenge any of Dr. … A determining factor for the statute of limitations is clearly written into IDEA-2004. It is the date Plaintiffs requested their due process hearing.

Kirby v. Pennsylvania R.

92 F. Supp. 417 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 1950

It prays (b) that the said positions be re-established and the incumbents, as well as any others *420 adversely affected, be compensated for any monetary- losses sustained. … The motion follows clearly Form 19 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., and is adequate.

TYSH v. RAZOR TECHNOLOGY, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2025

Mar. 15, 2022) (finding that declarations attached to a motion to dismiss “clearly may not be considered” at the pleadings stage (quoting Schmidt v. … The PHRA is generally interpreted in accord with its federal counterparts, see Kelly, 94 F.3d at 105, which reflect the “well-established presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes.”

NEDAB v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2020

. § 8521-22, its officials who are sued in their official capacities are immune from suits filed in federal court. … The timing of the allegedly retaliatory behavior relative to the constitutionally protected conduct may establish a causal link between the two for purposes of establishing motivation.

In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation

64 F. Supp. 3d 665 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2014

The FDA clearly stated in its ruling that delays still occur despite the mandate of 28 U.S.C. § 355 (q)(l)(A). … Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254, 277 (3d Cir.2012) (finding that, where "price itself was not the clearly predominant mechanism of exclusion,” failure to establish predatory pricing did not preclude the plaintiffs' claim). .

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

744 F. Supp. 1323 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1990

The record clearly establishes that instead of fostering marital communication and bolstering the state’s interest in marital integrity, the exact opposite effect would likely occur. See also Eubanks v. … Walker's testimony clearly establishes that incidents of abuse are heightened during pregnancy.

TILLMAN v. MALLIS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2025

. § 1915A(b)(1), or that “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief,” id. § 1915A(b)(2). … “Section 1983 does not, by its own terms, create substantive rights; it provides only remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution or federal laws.” Kneipp v.

Pickron v. Jacobs

622 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1985

Loar, 264 Pa.Super. 398 , 399 A.2d 1110 (1979), which allowed such substantive use for prior inconsistent statements, Judge Kremer argued that Loar did not represent an encroachment upon an earlier rule of law clearly enunciated … And to establish the identity of the accused circumstantial evidence may be sufficient. Id. (citations omitted). Thus, in Commonwealth v.

COLLINS v. SHUTTERED VENUES OPERATIONS GRANT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2024

“Eligible applicants [could] qualify for grants equivalent to 45% of their gross earned revenue, with the maximum amount available for a single grant award of $10 million.” Id. … Consequently, we consider the Second Amended Complaint as assessing a claim for violation of the APA, which “broadly waives sovereign immunity.” Gentile v. Sec. Exch.