Case law

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

TruePosition, Inc. v. LM Ericsson Telephone Co.

844 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2012

What is clearly lacking are allegations of evidence of the alleged agreement predating the drafting and submission of the work item. … Conduit reveals that it was also decided after a full jury trial and that the appeal concerned not the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint, but the propriety of the district court’s grant of judgment n.o.v. on an immunity

Samahon v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

40 F. Supp. 3d 498 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2014

In such a situation, the threat to privacy posed by disclosure cannot be said to be “clearly unwarranted.” See Dep’t of Air Force v. … Indeed, in the Davin decision, the Third Circuit expressly declined to adopt a per se rule that records compiled by the FBI qualify as “records compiled for law enforcement purposes.” Id.

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

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 .

HOLTON v. HENON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2022

In sum, the record clearly establishes, and this Court finds, that the land in question from which Mr. … is immune from adverse possession as it is municipal property held for public use.

In Re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation

443 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2006

The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that "[a] merger clause establishes that the parties intended the writing to be an integration of their agreement." … Because Section 10.4 qualifies as a merger clause, the Agreement, under Minnesota law, is a complete integration of the contract between the parties.

GARDNER v. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 2024

Gardner’s claims in that he has sued numerous Defendants who are not state actors subject to liability under Section 1983 and others who are entitled to absolute immunity. … However, because clearly bars Gardner’s lawsuit in full, the Court will not address these other bases for dismissal. invalidated, then he may file a new claim under Section 1983.

Utilimax. Com, Inc. v. PPL ENERGY PLUS, LLC

273 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2003

The Supreme Court held that even though the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”) did not immunize regulated carriers from government antitrust prosecution, it did preclude damage awards to private litigants. … Whether or not these rates were inflated as a result of PPL’s anti-competitive motives is irrelevant, Utilimax is clearly objecting to the actual rates and not some non-rate activity.

CARSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2024

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), (2) the Complaint does not allege Detectives Mangoni, Collins, and Reinhold violated Carson’s constitutional rights, (3) they have qualified immunity with respect to the failure to intervene … claim because it is not a clearly established right in the context of trials, and (4) the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state claims for civil rights conspiracy, supervisory liability, and municipal liability

BULLOCK v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2020

Plaintiff States a Claim for Race Discrimination under Title VII “In order to state a viable Title VII claim, a plaintiff must show that she (1) belongs to a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) suffered … If Plaintiff wishes to pursue claims relating to these issues, she must clearly articulate those claims and the requisite elements of those claims in an amended pleading.

United States v. Lester

268 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2003

. § 3553 (b), the sentencing court may impose a sentence outside the range established by the applicable guidelines, if it finds “that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not … Lester has not met his burden of showing that he qualifies for a departure under the terms of 5K2.13. If Mr.

Loy v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

838 F. Supp. 991 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1993

A court must determine whether the party making the claim would be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be established in support of his or her claim. Hishon v. … Clearly, the Loys are pure consumers of Armstrong’s carpeting. Thus Thom is not controlling. In addition, the Loys are also not competitors of Armstrong.

Killian v. McCulloch

850 F. Supp. 1239 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1994

Thus, to establish statutory coverage, Plaintiffs allege that the Plan is an “employee pension benefit plan” as defined in ERISA. … They do not clearly state that they have been offered employment opportunities that have been turned down.

WEISS v. THE PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

However, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to establish that she is qualified to perform the essential functions of her echo tech job and proposed an unreasonable accommodation as a matter of law, so she has … The Third Circuit has established that Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that she is a qualified individual, and the employer has the burden of showing a particular job function is an essential function.

BURNS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

Burns cannot establish a case of disability discrimination because he cannot show that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his job with a reasonable accommodation. Mr. … Burns cannot establish that he was a “qualified individual” under the ADA for the same reason he cannot prevail on his failure to accommodate claim.

G. v. SAUCON VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2021

“is a qualified individual with a disability and has a service dog.” See id. … Whether an animal qualifies as a service animal is a two-part test.

WESTMORELAND

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2026

“Section 1983 provides a civil remedy for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.’” Halsey v. … App’x 725, 730 (3d Cir. 2021) (noting that “[a] privately retained attorney clearly does not act under color of state law, and . . . that ‘no color of state law attache[s] to the functions of court-appointed counsel.’”

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation

302 F.R.D. 339 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2014

To assist them, Plaintiffs have retained attorneys who are highly qualified, experienced, and able to conduct this litigation. … Defendants have indicated an intent to advance defenses, such as an agricultural cooperative immunity defense under the Cap-per-Volstead Act and a defense involving standard-setting conduct, that will present difficult factual

SANTUCCI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2026

Thus, to qualify as a judgment for purposes of Rule 59(e), an order must “be appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and have the effect of terminating the litigation.” Jacovetti L., P.C. v. … But such an order can become a final decision if the plaintiff elects clearly to stand on his complaint. Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232, 240 (3d Cir. 2019).