Case law

Archibald McNeil & Sons Co. v. United States

1 F.2d 39 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 1924

We have thus qualified the latter statement, because the question of law in the view of the resourceful counsel for Ihe plaintiff is one to which the familiar doctrine of the law of accord and satisfaction applies. … No one -is bound to accept less than what the law pronounces to be his due, and his agreement to accept loss is clearly nudum pactum. The moment, however, a consideration is introduced, he is bound.

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital

154 F.R.D. 594 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1994

The County’s and Commonwealth’s failure to prohibit excessive medication of class members clearly violates Paragraph A6 of the Court Decree. 37. … These findings indicate that the defendants are clearly in violation of Paragraph A4 of the Court Decree.

TALBERT v. HARRY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2024

To exhaust his remedies, a petitioner must have fairly presented the same claim to the state court and pursued that claim through one complete round of the state’s established appellate review process. … However, Talbert’s habeas petition was denied without prejudice because he had failed to exhaust his state court remedies, which is clearly a curable deficiency; indeed, Judge Sitarski’s Report and Recommendation clearly

Holloway v. Horn

161 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2001

We also conclude that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the idea of “fair response” is well established. … was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 151 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

Caiby v. Link

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2022

Section 1915 accords judges “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . .” at 327. … First, a supervisor may be liable if he or she “‘with deliberate indifference to the consequences, established and maintained a policy, practice or custom which directly caused [the] constitutional harm.”

HYNEMAN v. HOLLYWOOD CASINO MORGANTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2025

The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Id. at 433. … “To establish a prima facie case for retaliation, the elements under the each statutory regime are ‘essentially the same’: [the plaintiff] ‘must show that (1) [s]he engaged in a protected activity (such as taking FMLA qualifying

United States Ex Rel. Almeida v. Rundle

255 F. Supp. 936 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1966

This is not a case where an act clearly not criminal at the time of its occurrence, is so declared to be at some subsequent time. … The relator contends that a close reading of the Redline decision establishes that it overruled the Almeida case, this conclusion I must reject.

BRADLEY v. EASYACC.COM, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 2023

We decline to grant summary judgment here, as there are clearly material facts in dispute. We are reminded that a fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” … It is well established that “[a] factual disagreement between experts is a matter for the jury to resolve.” Hartle v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., 2014 WL 1317702, at *7 (W.D.Pa.

United States v. Narducci

18 F. Supp. 2d 481 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1997

Again, we note that whether to make a motion is clearly an “attorney decision.” See Weatherwax II, 77 F.3d at 1435 . Hence, Mr. … He invoked the Fifth Amendment and broached the possibility of receiving immunity.

Baker v. FAMILY CREDIT COUNSELING COPR.

440 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2006

In Ginley , the court stated that "[tjypically, a breach of fiduciary duty claim will survive the gist of the action doctrine only where the fiduciary relationship in question is well-established and clearly defined by Pennsylvania … The Third Circuit did not state, however, that in order to survive a gist of the action defense, the fiduciary relationship always needed to be “well-established and clearly defined by Pennsylvania law.” 37 .

Federal Trade Commission v. Abbvie Inc.

107 F. Supp. 3d 428 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2015

As amended by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”), and .the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, the FDC Act also establishes procedures designed … The two agreements in issue, in contrast to the agreements in Actavis , are clearly in the best interests of the consumer.

DAVIS

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

Davis is a qualified individual for purposes of establishing her disability discrimination case, I must determine whether she had the to perform the required tasks of her role, not whether she could perform them … To establish pretext, Ms.

Wayne-Gossard Corp. v. Sondra, Inc.

434 F. Supp. 1340 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1977

The Sondra knit-in spandex rim and the Sarbo laid-in rubber rim are equivalents, and such equivalency for incorporating rubber was known and clearly established in the knitting art prior to the time of the Sarbo invention … The Sondra Style 40 and 50 footsocks fall clearly within the language in Claims 4 and 5 of the Sarbo reissue patent.

Smith v. Pressed Steel Tank Co.

66 F.R.D. 429 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1975

On the basis of the fact that there is very little absolute in medicine you can’t make a definite statement all the time, so you have to qualify it, and this is my opinion. This is my opinion. … Pennsylvania courts apply a stringent rule regarding the essentials of expert medical testimony when such testimony is required to establish a causal connection with the accident and plaintiff’s injuries. In Menarde v.

Ebasco Services, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

460 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1978

A social policy aimed at protecting the average consumer by prohibiting blanket immunization of a manufacturer or seller through the use of standardized disclaimers engenders little resistance. … We are satisfied that the parties’ course of dealings and the general trade usage clearly establish that the parties did not intend that GE would be liable to PP&L for cost of replacement power under any theory of liability

BOZIC v. GILMORE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2025

When a claim is adjudicated on the merits in state court, a federal court may not grant habeas relief unless the adjudication is: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal … In sum, the Superior Court’s rejection of Grounds Thirteen and Fourteen was “not contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court

Leaman v. Wolfe

31 F. Supp. 3d 687 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2014

Finally, he contends that he did not clearly consent to a waiver of due process as is necessary for a confession of judgment. … Further, as established in [Douglass v.]

Mikell v. Marriott International, Inc.

789 F. Supp. 2d 607 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2011

For failure to promote claims, “[t]he initial burden is on the employee” to show that “(1) [he or she] is a member of a protected class, (2) [he or she] sought and was qualified for the promotion, (3) [he or she] was rejected … Mikell does not clearly defend his retaliatory failure to promote claim.

United States v. Barnes

213 F. Supp. 510 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1963

If the government should be able to establish at trial that Barnes’s acts and intent amounted to a violation of § 2113(b) and that Miller and Dubas received the money from him, knowing it to have been taken from the bank … The case at bar deals with embezzlement, with which the statute does not explicitly couple any qualifying term. Moreover, as Judge Learned Hand held in United States v.

Seldon v. Home Loan Services, Inc.

647 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2009

Rather than offer allegations pertaining to the above requirements, plaintiffs simply allege that defendants failed to disclose the finance charge “clearly and accurately,” apparently due to undisclosed or unreasonable fees … Co., 2004 WL 2980415 , at *3 (E.D.Pa.2004) (failing to mention of 1996 amendments, but calling requirement of proof of fraud “well-established”); Piper v. Am. Nat’l Life Ins.