Case law

F. Schumacher & Co. v. Silver Wallpaper & Paint Co.

810 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1992

Effect on Agreements. — A course of dealing between parties and any usage of trade in the vocation or trade in which they are engaged or of which they are or should be aware give particular meaning to and supplement or qualify … See also Hayden, 879 F.2d at 1024 (pecuniary injury must be established before injunctive relief can issue). 11 .

ARCHIE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2025

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other persons within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Clearly, at this stage of the litigation, Plaintiff has introduced sufficient evidence to show that a genuine dispute exists on this claim and, thus, survives summary judgment.

Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc.

160 F.R.D. 478 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1995

the person might qualify for benefits in the future under specified circumstances. … The latter half of this statement is clearly misleading.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno

31 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1999

In Reno I, the Supreme Court found that the case law provided “no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium,” rejecting the argument that the lowered level of scrutiny … It follows in this context that the harm to plaintiffs from the infringement of their rights under the First Amendment clearly outweighs any purported interest of the defendant.

TALBERT v. SHAPIRO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2023

Talbert cannot sue the Governor in his official capacity for damages given the Commonwealth’s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. And Mr. … Talbert claims his treatment is “clearly irrational” but he “cannot use conclusory, boilerplate language to show that he may be entitled to relief[.]”95 We dismiss Mr.

Silicon Power Corp. v. General Electric Zenith Controls, Inc.

661 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2009

“Rather, ‘the decision must fly in the face of clearly established legal precedent ....’” Id. (quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Jaros, 70 F.3d 418, 421 (6th Cir.1995)). … We conclude, therefore, that Wilkinson’s reliance on Permanence did not “fly in the face of clearly established legal precedent” or ignore “the existence of a clearly governing legal principle” of which he was aware and,

Lazovick v. Sun Life Insurance Co. of America

586 F. Supp. 918 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1984

He explained that the conversion option only makes. sense when there is a problem of insurability, i.e. where a policyholder has a deteriorated physical condition and cannot qualify for new insurance. … Although it is well established that the defense of death by suicide is an affirmative one, as to which the defendant insurer has the burden of proof, Watkins v. Prudential Ins.

Porter v. Horn

276 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2003

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ or (2) ‘involved an unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States … Under this standard, the appropriate inquiry is “whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.”

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Central Penn National Bank

372 F. Supp. 1027 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1974

of the claims, the main thrust of this trial has been to establish the order of priorities among Miller’s creditors. … Despite the conditional nature of Franklin’s lien, it suffices to qualify that claimant as a “lien creditor” as of February 7, 1966.

Pennwalt Corp. v. Centaur Partners

710 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1989

the Company to fill all five vacancies created by the removal of current directors and the reduction of the number of directors, each to hold office until the next annual meeting and until a successor has been elected and qualified … “[Ajbstention is the exception, not the rule, and is justified only in the exceptional circumstance where the order guiding the parties to the state court ‘would clearly serve an important state interest.’ ” Izzo v.

TYLER v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P.

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

He clearly hoped that the marijuana use was Penske’s only concern about him, based on his contingent offer and what the recruiter had told him. … The plaintiff may establish causation through “(1) an unusually suggestive temporal proximity between the protected activity and the allegedly retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish

City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A., Corp.

126 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2000

The statute clearly refers to nuisance actions because it mentions “abatement.” … At the time of the suit, sovereign immunity had been abolished by the courts, and the legislature had not yet reenacted sovereign immunity by statute. See id.

RUTKO v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2024

Nov. 24, 2023) (“[I]t is well established that ‘a complaint need not anticipate or overcome affirmative defenses.’” (quoting Schmidt, 770 F.3d at 252)); Wiggins v. Albert Einstein Med. … While responding to a pro se complaint can be challenging for a defendant, Merck is now clearly on notice—with the added benefit of Rutko’s Response to their Motion and this Memorandum, both of which clarify the already

United Nuclear Corp. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.

302 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 1969

Staffing is difficult, since there is a shortage of qualified personnel. … After a corporation acquires the necessary personnel and establishes its facilities, it must then strive for acceptance by the utilities.

TUOHEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2025

To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position she sought to retain or attain; (3) she suffered an adverse employment … Tuohey establishes the first three prongs of a prima facie case — she was a member of a protected class, qualified for her position, and subjected to an adverse employment action. Makky, 541 at 214; DI 27-2 at 6-7.

De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. Rasa Floors, LP

269 F.R.D. 445 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2010

Regarding the “adequacy of counsel” prong, while no clearly defined standard exists to determine whether class counsel is qualified to represent the putative class, the court is required to confirm that the proposed attorneys … Gossett, counsel for Viewpoint and Rasa, is a qualified and experienced trial attorney able to represent his two clients. Nevertheless, Mr.

PIERRE v. MOORE

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

Second, Defendants’ qualified immunity argument no longer applies because Pierre has withdrawn his claims against Defendants Williams, Faly and Mastroddi. … Pierre has not pleaded sufficient facts to establish this element.

IN RE: JOHNSON

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

She further contends that she has been “fatally prejudiced . . . due to mistaken identity, and a presumption of civil death,” and that “multiple trusts have arisen and are now established as a result of both direct in personum … 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. . . .” Id. at 327.

Cohen v. Salick Health Care, Inc.

772 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 1991

The Medicaid program “authorizes federal grants to States for medical assistance to low-income persons who are age 65 or over, blind, disabled, or members of families with dependant children or qualified pregnant women or … Although there is no question that many doctors and other health care providers receive “funds” for services rendered to Medicaid eligible patients, it was clearly not the intention of the Pennsylvania legislature to include

RIGHTEOUS v. OVERBROOK SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2025

The Daubert standard is codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which states: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, … Thus, for a majority of individuals, the overall very favorable risk-benefit ratio of booster immunizations persists.”