Case law

BREWER v. KEY BANK N.A.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2024

Here, Brewer argues that she has established a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination because the undisputed facts of record establish that she was pregnant and qualified for her position; she was subjected … Brewer counters that the undisputed evidence clearly establishes that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job as of February 23, 2022, because one of her medical providers gave her a February 23, 2022

Walton v. Darby Town Houses, Inc.

395 F. Supp. 553 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 1975

; and finally, the size of plaintiff’s family did not qualify him for the three bedroom unit provided for him by Darby Town Houses (the Waltons have two children). 7. … The complaint clearly refers to Rosner as the Landlord and Walton as the Tenant.

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.

Turturro v. United States

43 F. Supp. 3d 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

Certainly, the duties set forth in furtherance of this goal qualify as matters of social policy rather than a mere consensus among parties. … Plaintiffs have not established, and cannot establish, that the Agusta pilots violated any FARs. Accordingly, they cannot establish that the Agusta pilots violated their lease with the City of Philadelphia.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.

545 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1982

[I]t may prove desirable to limit copyright Drotection for software to those computer programs which produce works which themselves qualify for copyright protection.... … But it is sufficient to say that among this group there was agreement that the copyright law does not clearly protect work like those in suit that are ROM-based. 11 .

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stone Container Corp.

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.

Society Hill Towers Owners' Ass'n v. Rendell

20 F. Supp. 2d 855 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1998

Plaintiffs have expressed their grievances often, loudly, and clearly to the decisionmak-ers. The decisionmakers have heard the complaints but have chosen a path different from that urged by plaintiffs. … and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

RHETT v. KIJAKAZI, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2023

qualified representative?”). … to establish disability.

Iannarelli v. Morton

327 F. Supp. 873 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1971

Redmond stated: “All of these incidents we submit establish beyond any doubt that Mr. … (Frances had previously advised Sam he could not qualify for the 7. Would this be the proper time and place to inform him so in writing. J. B.) .

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth.

337 F. Supp. 3d 562 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 2018

SEPTA carries the burden of establishing that its restrictions meet this criteria. … While SEPTA qualifies as a government actor for certain constitutional analyses, the Third Circuit has specifically held that the protections of Eleventh Amendment immunity do not extend to SEPTA. See Cooper v.

MCNEISH v. BERRYHILL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2020

If, instead, “the government’s legal position clearly offends established precedent . . . its position cannot be said to be ‘substantially justified.’” Id. … Ct. at 2053 (“Freytag says everything necessary to decide this case.”), it had a limited reach because it only established that “special trial judges” (STJs) of the United States Tax Court qualify as officers rather than

WHEELER

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

The Court will not grant judgment on the pleadings “unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains … and that [they are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rosenau v. … “To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, plaintiff must show that (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) members

BUSH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2026

“[i]nformation assembled as a result of the performance of any inquiry, formal or informal, into a criminal incident or an allegation of criminal wrongdoing and may include modus operandi information.” 3 The DAO clearly … App’x 120, 125 (3d Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (“Federal courts are reluctant to establish new evidentiary privileges.”).

JENKINS v. CIOCCA MANAGEMENT, INC.

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

and appropriate action; but an employer will not be liable for the sexual 2 Curiously, Defendant’s briefing omits any mention of employer liability in the context of coworker-on-coworker harassment, even though it is clearly … App’x 162, 164 (3d Cir. 2005) (finding that complaints of hostile work environment “clearly” satisfied first element of Title VII of retaliation claim); see also Smith v. RB Distribution, Inc., 498 F.

POTEAT v. LYDON

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

However, under Pennsylvania law, that is clearly impermissible. … Poteat believes that this allegation is sufficient to establish a claim of conspiracy. See id. ¶ 41.

JENKINS v. SEPTA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2019

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when “the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains . . . and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rosenau v. … qualified for the position she sought to attain or retain; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination.

SAVAGE v. CARNEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2022

Savage’s request to place his claims on our Prisoner Civil Rights Panel for possible selection by qualified counsel. Mr. … Savage’s request for placement on the Court’s Prisoner Civil Rights Panel should qualified counsel wish to represent him.

In re Search Warrant No. 16-960-M-1 to Google

275 F. Supp. 3d 605 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2017

Cal. 2014) (“The SCA grants immunity to 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (a) claims to electronic communication service providers ... for accessing content on their own servers.”). … Section 2703 establishes three main forms of legal process by which the government may require a provider to disclose subscriber information, in its possession: (1) “a warrant issued using the procedures described in. the

Altnor v. Preferred Freezer Services, Inc.

197 F. Supp. 3d 746 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2016

First, the risk factor does not clearly support approval of the requested incentive award. … The Third Circuit later qualified the applicability of the presumption of fairness.

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.