Case law

Weiner v. Bank of King of Prussia

358 F. Supp. 684 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1973

It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant — not to others — which justifies judicial intervention. McCabe v. Atchison, T. and S. F. R. … C. § 1337 do not establish his standing to sue the nineteen moving defendants.

Total Containment, Inc. v. Environ Products, Inc.

921 F. Supp. 1355 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 1995

They can probably yet see the scene as clearly as if it had been fixed by photograph. … The defendant has not met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the Hofit brochures qualify as printed publications.

Com. of Pennsylvania v. O'NEILL

431 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1977

Clearly the plaintiffs were justified in insisting that the Decree cover these matters. … Jordan assembled and prepared materials concerning the issue of back pay to which the qualifying named plaintiffs were entitled under the terms of the plaintiffs’ settlement of this issue.

ROSE v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2023

The Court noted that the “in controversy” requirement was satisfied because Plaintiff alleged that “he belongs to a protected category under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he is a qualified individual with … Plaintiff has failed to establish a clearly defined and serious injury.

FORWARD

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2026

The Third Circuit has highlighted, in the qualified immunity context, “the particular usefulness of the Rule 12(e) motion,” calling it “perhaps the best procedural tool available to the defendant to obtain the factual … Under Pennsylvania substantive law, “a punitive damages claim must be supported by evidence sufficient to establish that (1) a defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the

Friedman v. Delaware County Memorial Hospital

672 F. Supp. 171 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1987

It has been clearly demonstrated that the number of bronchoscopies performed at Delaware County Memorial Hospital significantly exceed, on a comparable basis, those done at other institutions in the area. … In Marrese, the court held that conduct clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy and actively supervised by the state is immune from antitrust liability. 3 .

Ciolli v. Iravani

651 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2009

Similarly, he asserts that the Pennsylvania citizens who worked for ReputationDefender qualify as agents of the company who formed a continuous and systematic part of ReputationDefender’s business. (Id. at 4.) … But just as this contact was not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Lemley, this contact is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Iravani.

In Re CDNOW, Inc. Securities Litigation

138 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2001

The court finds that the earliest the qualification could have been dated is March 16, 2000, since the qualification is clearly dated such in the Report of Independent Auditors, see Def. Mot. Dismiss Ex. … However, allegations of motive and opportunity, in and of themselves, do not establish scienter. Id.; see also Bryant v.

EXPOTECH ENGINEERING, INC. v. CARDONE INDUSTRIES, INC.

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

Bribery qualifies as a predicate act under the statute. See H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, 492 U.S. 229, 250 (1989). … First, Congress clearly envisioned “circumstances in which no more than two predicates would be necessary to establish a pattern.” Id.

Terry v. Gillis

93 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2000

granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … review, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had not consistently and regularly applied the 1995 amendments to the PCRA, namely, the one-year statute of limitations, as a procedural bar to all untimely PCRA petitions that do not qualify

Bostick v. ITT Hartford Group, Inc.

56 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1999

In order to qualify for policy coverage, several conditions must be met. First, the loss incurred must be provided for in the policy. Possible restrictions may limit the insured’s ability to recover the incurred loss. … Under Pennsylvania law, if the loss of a house was caused by collapse due to hidden decay, it clearly and unambiguously would be covered by the terms of the aforementioned policy. See Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins.

Harlan v. Transworld Systems, Inc.

302 F.R.D. 319 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2014

Satisfaction of these factors establishes “an initial presumption of fairness,” In re Linerboard, 292 F.Supp.2d at 638 (citing Gen. … 3d Cir.2006) (quoting Am-chem, 521 U.S. at 625 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 ), and “assures that the named plaintiffs’ claims are not antagonistic to the class and that the attorneys for the class representatives are experienced and qualified

In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation

82 F.R.D. 143 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1979

The existence, scope and efficacy of the alleged conspiracy are clearly questions that are common to all class members. In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 80 F.R.D. 244, 247 (S.D.Tex.1978). … Further, the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota and South Dakota and their respective attorneys general and/or affiliated private counsel are eminently qualified to serve as class representatives and class

Concerned Citizens of Bridesburg v. City of Philadelphia

643 F. Supp. 713 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1986

Giving adequate allowance for varying degrees of sensitivity, the evidence clearly establishes that the neighborhood residents have been long suffering. … Clearly the plant has not operated within the requirements of either the statute or the code.

Schaefer v. HPB Foam LLC

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

Pursuant to §§ 1.1 and 1.2 of the Franchise Agreements, the Schaefers were granted non- exclusive license to establish and operate their franchises under certain rules and limitations in … The Assignment clearly provides bargained-for mutual obligations on the part of both HPB Foam LLC and the individual plaintiffs.

Hardtke v. Exide Corp.

821 F. Supp. 1021 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 1993

Moreover, industri *1031 al battery sales was the type of work in which he was experienced and qualified to perform. … We find that Hardtke has established that the Clark, New Jersey facility was 39 miles further from his residence and that he measured this distance in a car using the most direct route.

RICHARDSON v. PECO ENERGY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2022

Congress requires we now screen her amended Complaint and dismiss if we find her action frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Richardson is claiming PECO violated the Truth in Lending Act disclosure requirements, she must show PECO qualified as a “creditor” defined as one “who regularly extends consumer credit that is subject to a finance

RAGUSA v. LEHIGH UNIVERSITY

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

In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the ADA, a plaintiff must show "(1) [s]he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential … In addition, Kovar testified that Plaintiff not having any teaching responsibilities in the fall of 2016 was not clearly a condition of her return. Kovar dep. 91:18-22 (ECF 74- 6, Ex. 2.).

WENDY H., BY AND THROUGH SMITH v. Philadelphia

849 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1994

I believe that plaintiffs expert took this as a given in evaluating Finney’s conduct, as do I; clearly if Finney was expected to maintain the contact and vigilance over the plaintiffs placement that a hands-on social worker … The statute does immunize the city and its agencies. See J.F. v. County of Erie, 6 D & C 4th 146, 148 (1990). AND THEREFORE, this 24th day of March, 1994, IT IS ORDERED that: 1.

Bloch v. Temple University

939 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1996

Forbes concluded that the area should be placed “off limits to anyone other than persons qualified in hazardous materials management” and that air flow from the fourth floor should be restricted. … Finally, the employer can establish that it would have taken the adverse employment action regardless of whether the employee had engaged in protected conduct. Pro v.