Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterspaed

5,177 results

1.82s

  • CONCEPCION v. RUSSEL

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

    Lake Cnty., Ohio, 141 F.4th 775, 783 (6th Cir. 2025) (agreeing that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on Eighth Amendment claim when they were “were aware that [plaintiff] had been taking several essential … antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • KELLY v. PA DOC

    District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2023

    immunity. … This evidence is not sufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment claim because it fails to establish he was subjected to conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm; rather, the record only establishes Kelly experienced

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • CHECCHIA v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

    District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2023

    Also, Chase's principal defenses, such as government immunity, are common to all class members.”). … As discussed above, class counsel is more than qualified to represent the class. (See Ostrow Decl. ⁋ 35, Exhibit 1-3.)

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • FERGUSON

    District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 2026

    Ferguson plausibly alleges that she is a qualified individual with a disability based on her bipolar I with anxiety diagnosis, which impacts several of her major life functions. … To support a substantive due process claim in the context of dependency proceedings, a child welfare worker’s decision-making must be so clearly arbitrary that it shocks the conscience.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Adelvision, L.P. v. Groff

    859 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 1994

    Thus, the court must determine whether Cook qualifies as either a “holder of a security interest” or “purchaser.” … Finally, the money value of Cook’s Agreement with Groff is clearly evidenced by the language of the Agreement itself as well as the subsequent payment by Cook to Hamilton Bank. See Stip. Exhibit “D”.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SE PENNSYLVANIA v. Casey

    686 F. Supp. 1089 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1988

    The Act clearly establishes the physician’s good faith exercise of his medical judgment as an absolute defense to any criminal liability; it is only the failure to exercise his good faith medical judgment which subjects the … Plaintiffs maintain that the qualifying clause, providing an exception for those cases in which that technique would present a greater medical risk to the life or health of the mother, qualifies only the second of these requirements

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • PRUETTE v. EGAN-JONES RATINGS COMPANY

    District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 2024

    Clearly, Pruette was intimately familiar with and had personal knowledge of the EJR records that he reviewed to author his report. … If ISP wishes to claim future lost commissions from EJR, ISP must produce a qualified expert pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • QVC, Inc. v. Resultly, LLC

    159 F. Supp. 3d 576 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2016

    (“If [plaintiff] wants to ban scrapers, let it say so on the webpage or a link clearly marked as containing restrictions.”). … To obtain a preliminary injunction, however, a plaintiff must go further and establish a likelihood of succeeding on its claim.

    Cited 27 timesPublished
  • United States v. Gordon

    979 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1997

    Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant may qualify for a decrease in offense levels for acceptance of responsibility if he. meets any of the factors cited in a noninclusive list in the Guidelines’ application notes. … Conclusion Accordingly, we find that Gordon has not met the standards established in Strickland . Specifically, we find that even if Mr.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Moyer v. Brownell

    137 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1956

    Under such circumstances, the federal courts have consistently held that the Fifth Amendment does not provide immunity for giving, voluntarily or under compulsion, false testimony, unless the compulsion requires the giving … This testimony is clearly inadmissible in a proceeding such as' this, but may be .admissible at any criminal trial. See the comment on Second Defense in Footnote 4 above. 21 .

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Yancoski v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.

    581 F. Supp. 88 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1983

    RICO only requires two acts of racketeering activity within ten years to establish a pattern, see 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (5), and fraud in the sale of securities qualifies as racketeering activity, see 18 U.S.C. *95 § 1961(1). … “RICO quite clearly envisions a relationship between a ‘person’ and an ‘enterprise’ as an element of the offense which 1962(c) proscribes and for which 1964(c) would subject the ‘person’ to treble damages.”

    Cited 33 timesPublished
  • State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Motta

    356 F. Supp. 3d 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2018

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court first found error in the superior court "looking beyond the allegations raised in Bethlehem's [c]omplaint to determine whether National Union had a duty to defend Kvaerner" because "the well-established … therefore "came to the unremarkable conclusion that an intentional tort was not an accident and thus not a covered occurrence under the policy." 87 Our Court of Appeals described "[t]he present suit against Pipher [as] clearly

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • ALLEN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

    District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2020

    A claim for excessive force clearly accrues when the force is applied. Therefore, Allen’s § 1983 claims for 7. … The claimant must also establish that he is innocent of the crime charged in the criminal proceeding. Hector v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • BLOCK v. GENERAL MOTORS CO.

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

    On the other hand, “expert evidence” is “unnecessary” where “testimony and pictures may enable the jury to clearly see the construction of the [allegedly defective product] and the manner of its use.” … ma[de] him well qualified as an expert witness.” Id. Mr.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • BLANCO v. CITY OF READING

    District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2021

    antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.” … Blanco also contends that the City’s argument that he is not qualified is “absurd” because he was selected for the position, but again fails to allege that he was in fact qualified. See id.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Overfield v. Pennroad Corporation

    42 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1941

    J.), and where the plaintiff has clearly established his right, the court will grant appropriate relief regardless of the inconvenience of the defendants. Woodruff v. … The custodians or other qualified witnesses have identified such evidence as to its character and substance and established its authenticity to the satisfaction of the court.

    Reversed on other grounds by Overfield v. Pennroad Corporation, 146 F.2d 889 (1944)Cited 27 timesPublished
  • MOORE v. RUSSELL

    District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2023

    2021) (permitting claim against defendant in his individual capacity to proceed even though “[plaintiff] did not check the box indicating a desire to sue [that defendant] in his individual capacity” where allegations clearly … When attempting to establish a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege and prove that a “person” deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right while acting under color of state law. See West v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • GAVURNIK v. VANTAGE LABS, LLC

    District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2022

    No. 64-11)—that Gavurnik was qualified for the position. … Causation Having found that Gavurnik raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was qualified, we now consider whether Gavurnik has established

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • REESE v. SOURCE 4 TEACHERS

    District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2021

    Plaintiff, however, cannot establish that he was qualified or eligible for the substitute teacher position for which he applied. … Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff was qualified for the position and can establish a prima facie case, his claim of intentional discrimination still fails based on the evidence presented.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

    513 F. Supp. 1100 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1981

    Venzie sets forth one means of establishing a conspiracy circumstantially. Clearly by lowering the hauling allowance, Texaco acted in its self interest, and was not proceeding contrary to its “own economic interests.” … As plaintiffs’ FPS clearly establishes, each of these trading companies in turn sold to hundreds of customers in the United States market. 120A . See also discussion at 1213 infra. 121 .

    Reversed by Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 475 U.S. 574 (1986)Cited 60 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.