Case law

United States Ex Rel. Manduchi v. Tracy

233 F. Supp. 423 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 1964

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 447 , 73 S.Ct. 437 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953), rehearing denied, 345 U.S. 946 , 73 S.Ct. 827 , 97 L.Ed. 1370 (1953). … See also, Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); and United States v.

MILLER v. GOGGIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2023

Inc. v. PECO Energy Co., No. CV 21-2349-KSM, 2021 WL 4243503, at *1 (E.D. Pa. … Godfrey v. Upland Borough, 246 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1086 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (quoting Stoneback v. ArtsQuest, Civil Action No. 12-3286, 2012 WL 4963624, at *10 (E.D. Pa.

In re Scott Paper Co. Securities Litigation

145 F.R.D. 366 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1992

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 , 771-72 n. 24, 96 S.Ct. 1817 , 1830 n. 24, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976). … In Riley v.

Regional Employers' Assurance Leagues Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Ass'n Trust v. Castellano

164 F. Supp. 3d 705 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2016

For example, while the docket was dormant, counsel was pursuing remedies through the DOL and the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board. … . $54.00 12/22/09 Call from Mannion re Brown; Check status of DOL case .... $1,000.00 12/23/09 Review Brown Estate filings.... $1,250.00 1/8/10 Emails to and from J.

Onley v. Simms

476 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1979

Illinois, 557 F.2d 596, 601 (7th Cir. 1977) (“for plaintiff to state a cognizable claim, he must allege more than mere negligence on the part of . defendants”); Brown v. … Procunier v.

Slater v. Marshall

895 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 1995

Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 1402, 1405 (3d Cir.1991); Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir.1990). … In Post , the Supreme Court expressly limited the absolute privilege’s scope and ruled that a defamatory letter was not absolutely privileged when it was copied to a judge, the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Board and an alleged

THEODORE v. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY - TROOP SUPPORT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2020

Even if the Board were a federal agency, it would still not be the proper defendant in a Bivens action. See F.D.L.C. v. … See Ashcroft v.

Pennsylvania Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Houston

136 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2001

United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 551-553 , 116 S.Ct. 1529 , 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996). … The plaintiff had merely alléged that the school board’s conduct discriminated against all disabled children in the school system. Id.

Lawrence v. United States

631 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1982

Beale v. … Paige v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole, 311 F.Supp. 940 (E.D.Pa.1970). Since the individual defendants are no longer federal officials, it necessarily follows that they owe no clear, ministerial duty to plaintiff.

Hazarsharian v. Prudential Saving Ass'n

498 F. Supp. 17 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1980

In Fallat v. … See McSparran v. Weist, 402 F.2d 867 (3d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 903 , 89 S.Ct. 1739 , 23 L.Ed.2d 217 (1969), and Groh v.

In re the Complaint of McAllister Bros., Inc.

609 F. Supp. 616 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1985

At all times during this inbound voyage, made without incident, the master of the World Texas was also on board. … Co. v.

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation

223 F.R.D. 357 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2004

In McCubbrey v. … The ratification form must be executed by either the chief executive officer (“CEO”)or a duly authorized representative of the board of directors of each entity. Abbott Laboratories v.

HARRELL v. SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP

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

Officer Harrell concedes she is one of the part-time officers referred to by Chief Bellizzie during the Board meeting.'*. … °7 Brown vy. Aria Health, No. 17-1827, 2019 WL 1745653, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2019) (collecting cases). See e.g. Daniels v. Sch. Dist.

Fort Washington Resources, Inc. v. Tannen

901 F. Supp. 932 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1995

Pendleton is a shareholder and investor who acted as FWR’s chairman of the board during the time when the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred. Tr., 9/19/94, p. 33. (2) James Saltzman. Mr. … Browne v. Maxfield, 663 F.Supp. 1193, 1202 (E.D.Pa.1987). Dr. Tannen’s fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims arise from three alleged misstatements and material omissions: (1) Mr.

Imre v. Peacock Maritime SA

182 F. Supp. 3d 267 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2016

Whitfield, 111 F.Supp. at 185 (citing Brown v. Philippine President Lines, Inc., 704 F.Supp. 606, 609 (E.D.Pa. 1989)); see also Thomas v. Kambara Kisen Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 88-7243, 1990 WL 11647 , at *1 (E.D.Pa. … Feb. 12, 1990) (citing Brown, 704 F.Supp. at 609 ). The Bendes seek to distinguish Den, and cite Wheelings v. Seatrade Groningen, 516 F.Supp.2d 488 (E.D.Pa.2007).

FORNIEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2026

Under the Third Circuit’s test from Brown v. … Pa. 1994), which she characterizes as less demanding than the test from Brown. BIO 11.

Scott Fetzer Co. v. Gehring

288 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2003

In Browning King Co. v. … See Jellibeans, Inc. v. Skating Clubs of Georgia, Inc., 716 F.2d 833, 838 (11th Cir.1983); Purolator, Inc. v. EFRA Distributors, Inc., 687 F.2d 554, 559 (1st Cir.1982); Mother Waddles Perpetual Mission, Inc. v.

JONES v. AUGUSTINE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2020

Hewlett v. … Next, the Court finds that Jones’s effective abdication of this case leaves Defendants Brown, Wanda, Muhammad, and John, no avenue to facilitate a defense against Jones’s claims. See Palmer v. Rustin, No.

LUNEMANN v. KOOMA III LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2024

P. 23(a); see also Reyes v. … See Brown v. Kadence Int’l, Inc., No. 22-1097- KSM, 2023 WL 2614587, at *3–5 (E.D. Pa.

Katz v. Commanding Officer

388 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1975

It is now well settled that the judicial review of military determinations made by an official or review board is limited to whether there is a basis in fact in the record for the military determination. Estep v. … Smith v. Laird, 486 F.2d 307, 310 , 10th Cir. 1973.