Case law

RIVERA v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

And Congress has not abrogated the states’ immunity from §1983 actions. Quern v. … its face an intent to sweep away the immunity of the States”). Therefore, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is immune from suit under § 1983.

Synygy, Inc. v. ZS Associates, Inc.

110 F. Supp. 3d 602 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2015

Defamation per se vs. ordinary defamation ZS argues that the statements in Syny-gy’s press release, if false, qualify as defamation per se. ZS Opp’n at 26. … Should the law allow corporations to avoid showing special harm by taking advantage of an exception so clearly created to protect individuals?

Johnson v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13

757 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 1991

The Rowley Court stated, “[w]e do not attempt today to establish any one test for determining the adequacy of educational benefits conferred upon all children covered by the Act.” 458 U.S. at 202 , 102 S.Ct. at 3049 . … The Supreme Court reversed on sovereign immunity grounds. Thus, the Court did not rule on the Secretary’s impartiality in reviewing hearing officers' decisions: 109 S.Ct. at 2402 n. 3. 8 .

LAUREL GARDENS, LLC v. MCKENNA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2019

McKenna not to sign a non-compete agreement, that fact alone is clearly not dispositive evidence of Mr. Snyder’s membership in a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiffs. … Here, only two of seven factors weigh clearly in favor of admission: that the declarant was known and named and that the statement was based on personal knowledge.

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.

THOMAS v. LITTLE

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

, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” … Thomas clearly engaged in constitutionally protected conduct by filing a lawsuit. Cf Smith vy, Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 653 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Milhouse v.

Williams v. Wohlgemuth

400 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1975

Saez are all mothers who qualify for AFDC assistance. … Smith [ 392 U.S. 309 , 88 S.Ct. 2128 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968)] establishes that, at least in the absence of congressional authorization for the exclusion clearly evidenced from the Social Security Act or its legislative history

KNAPP v. THOMPSON GROUP, INC.

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

“Unlike a plaintiff in an ADA [or PHRA] discrimination case, a plaintiff in an ADA [or PHRA] retaliation case need not establish that he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’” Krouse v. Am. … “Thus, an employee who requests leave does not clearly communicate to her employer that she is disabled and desires an accommodation.” Rutt, 2014 WL 5390428, at *4 n. 11 (citing Colwell v.

CAGNETTI v. JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BENSALEM OPERATIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2020

Grp., Inc., 834 Accordingly, Cagnetti has failed to establish that she was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA, and her ADA hostile work environment claim cannot proceed. See Amorosi v. … that he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’”

Mente Chevrolet Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Gmac

728 F. Supp. 2d 662 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2010

Sabin, 452 Pa. 447 , 307 A.2d 845, 849 (1973) (“Clearly performance of that which one is already legally obligated to do is not consideration sufficient to support a valid agreement.”). … GMAC argues Woodward was not qualified to testify about out of trust dealerships. This Court qualified Woodward as an expert in automotive accounting and practices.

Tax Matrix Technologies, LLC v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

154 F. Supp. 3d 157 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2016

The December 12 workpapers would not qualify as an “assessment” when the term is used-in the technical sense. … But these facts alone are not enough to establish that the parties agreed that this work fell within the scope of the Letter Agreement.

Lomanno v. Black

285 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2003

Specifically, the events must qualify as substantial under Section 1391(a)(2) for venue to be proper. Pa. Gear Corp. v. Fulton, No. CIV. A. 98-1538, 1999 WL 80260 , at *2 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 26, 1999) (citations omitted). … Scha-low’s wife then met up with the remaining group as they frequented other establishments. (Id.) 3 .

MUHAMMAD v. MATRIX MEDICAL NETWORK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2021

Thus, Muhammad must first establish a prime facie case for discrimination. See id. … The statute further includes in its definition of major life activities “major bodily function[s], including . . . functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological,

Rosen v. Fidelity Fixed Income Trust

169 F.R.D. 295 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1995

STANDARD OF REVIEW A plaintiff seeking class certification “must establish that all four requisites of Rule 23(a) and at least one part of Rule 23(b) are met.” Baby Neal v. … Adequacy of Representation To establish adequate representation, “(a) the plaintiffs attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and (b) the plaintiff must not have interests

Browne v. Maxfield

663 F. Supp. 1193 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1987

Defendants stress that “[o]ne of the elements required to prove the existence of a binding contract is that the rate of compensation be clearly established.” Kassab, supra, 254 F.Supp. at 832 . … As we are not satisfied on the basis of the affidavit that Hoyt is qualified as an expert in the field of television-news personnel management, see Fed.R.

In Re Penn Central Transportation Company

358 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1973

For a number of these lawsuits GSC has established a reserve of approximately $7 million on its books. … There is, of course, no established market price for the Pennco stock, all of which is owned by the Debtor.

MCKINNEY v. United States

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2024

Because the FTCA provides a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity, its established procedures must be strictly construed. See White- Squire v. U.S. … As clearly stated in her testimony, Dr. Lendener did not review any MRIs, x-rays, or paper medical records of McKinney’s prior to her fall.

BURFORD v. DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2022

Plaintiffs’ allegations that the erroneous calculation of Plaintiff’s bail refund “was the result of Delaware Count[y’s] policy, practice and/or custom, and not some random and [un]authorized act of [a] single employee, and it clearly … The Court also need not address immunity arguments regarding Defendant Angela Martinez. use without just compensation. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617 (2001).

BUTLER v. PENCHISHEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2024

Defendants also assert that qualified immunity applies to Defendants Penchishen and Gephardt because there were no constitutional violations. Doc. 46-3, at 17-19. … B. 42 U.S.C. § 19836 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an individual may seek redress for the deprivation of their rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and

MATHIS v. BENDER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2020

Mathis’s allegations do not explicitly reveal the Defendants’ citizenship for purposes of plausibly establishing diversity jurisdiction. … Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006)) (“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party asserting its existence.”). IV.