Case law

LONG

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2025

a causal link.”®* He “‘must establish the [protected] activities were substantial and motivating factors’ in the allegedly retaliatory conduct.”© Our Court of Appeals instructs we “must be diligent” in enforcing the causation … either when the Government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy or when the Government obtains information by physically intruding on persons, houses, papers, or effects.”’* “Trespass alone does not qualify

ABADI v. TARGET CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2023

Mar. 17, 2022) (plaintiffs failed to state a plausible Section 504 claim where, among other 7 To establish a violation of Section 504, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he or she is handicapped under the Act; (2) qualified … However, in the Title III context, Plaintiff provides that Target qualifies as a “bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment.” Id. ¶ 42.

United States v. Spiezio

523 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1981

Spiezio clearly fits this definition. He knew the sales to Fisher and the undercover agent were occurring, and he knew the sales were unlawful. He associated himself with the sales. … The evidence showed that Ferrara was a nonmanagement employee of S & S Chemical Inc., was not acting primarily as its agent, and therefore clearly had capacity to conspire with it.

MCNICHOLAS v. CENTURY LINK, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2023

No other positions were offered to McNicholas which would have allowed him to remain employed, and he alleges all his job responsibilities were assigned to younger, less qualified employees. Id. ¶¶ 58- 59. … In applying the four factors outlined above, the Court finds that while the waiver provision was conspicuous, none of the other three elements have been established.

ECHOLS v. PREMIERE CREDIT OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2021

In cases where the debt can fluctuate, the Seventh Circuit has endorsed the “safe harbor” language established in Miller v. … Riexinger & Assoc., LLC, 817 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding that the Miller language qualifies as a safe harbor). Such an approach seems to comport with the requirements of the FDCPA.

Mwantembe v. TD Bank, N.A.

268 F.R.D. 548 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2010

Essentially, they contend that the plaintiffs cannot establish reliance, a necessary element of their UTPCPL cause of action. … Rule 23(b)(3)—Predominance and Superiority In addition to meeting the four requirements of 23(a), the action must also qualify as one of the types of class actions described in Rule 23(b).

United States v. Wright

730 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2010

However, the Third Circuit has not signaled that Herring spelled the end of the exclusionary rule for facially invalid warrants, and a facially invalid warrant is what is clearly before me. III. … Although the ultimate issue in Groh was whether the agent sued could invoke qualified immunity as a defense, the Court’s analysis of the underlying Fourth Amendment violation was detailed and extensive.

BISTRIAN v. WARDEN TROY LEVI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2020

Scott Rushton, MD, was qualified as an expert in orthopedic surgery and spinal surgery.141 136 See Karsch Test., Trial Tr. … Harry Schwartz, MD, were qualified as experts in “medicine and neurosurgery, general neurological surgery” and “physical medicine and rehabilitation, as well as spinal cord injuries,” respectively.144 155.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Gambone

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2021

Per our policy, Non-Owned Cars and Newly A[c]quired Cars cannot be owned by our policyholder or their spouse in order to qualify for coverage. … The State Farm policy clearly and unambiguously precludes liability coverage for the Cadillac.

Irelan v. Barnhart

243 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2003

Establishing Eligibility for SSI In order to qualify for SSI, a claimant must show that he suffers from a disability. … The Commissioner has established a five-step inquiry for determining whether a claimant is eligible for disability benefits under the Act.

Adams v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc.

978 F. Supp. 2d 485 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2013

Airways should be granted immunity from all tort liability. Our ruling that preemption does not apply also includes the treatment by the flight attendant flying on the buddy pass. … Because the FAA so clearly links refusal to transport with safety considerations, we find it preempts state law and that § 44902 governs Plaintiffs’ removal allegations.

Roofers Local No. 30 Combined Pension Fund v. D.A. Nolt, Inc.

719 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2010

Milwaukee Brewery clearly only addressed a claim for “gap year” interest. … Ludlow clearly has no bearing upon the Huber decision.

Gunn v. On the Border Acquisitions, LLC

298 F. Supp. 3d 811 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2018

Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation. … According to plaintiff, this "clearly indicates" that she would receive an unsatisfactory job evaluation. I disagree.

Miller v. Beard

214 F. Supp. 3d 304 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2016

Having an expert admit that an opposite conclusion is “conceivable” hardly qualifies as adequate Sixth Amendment representation. … I therefore conclude that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

GARCIA-ZAMORA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2025

As in Anirudh, it asserts that under § 1225(b)(2)(A), Garcia-Zamora qualifies as an alien who is “applicant for admission” and thus subject to mandatory detention in … Section 1226(a), as noted above and in contrast to Section 1225, establishes a discretionary detention framework for noncitizens arrested and detained “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney

Hadco Products, Inc. v. Lighting Corp. of America, Inc.

312 F. Supp. 1173 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1970

Under these circumstances we find that the latter’s determination was not clearly erroneous and we therefore adopt it. … John Deere Co., supra, where the Supreme Court said: “This qualified authority, (granted by Art.

Benchmark Group, Inc. v. Penn Tank Lines, Inc.

612 F. Supp. 2d 562 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2009

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to establish that the Bank loan was obtained through Benchmark’s work product. 4. … The Court is attempting to *578 discern the parties’ intent in drafting the Agreement as they did — a matter about which Raymond is qualified to speak, as he and Dean Spear prepared the February 7, 2007 Agreement together

Gruca v. United States Steel Corporation

360 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1973

Clearly, each individual veteran’s case must be determined on an ad hoc basis in light of the particular facts involved. B. … But such reasoning is clearly fallacious. Any weighing process which pits the in *48 terests of a sole individual against the interests of the group must generally tip in favor of the latter.

PEOPLES v. GARMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2022

The Clearly Established Federal Law In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must demonstrate that (1) his attorney’s performance was deficient … Petitioner argues that the Superior Court applied law contrary to clearly established federal law in reaching this decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

ALLENTOWN CENTRAL CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL v. SIMCO SALES SERVICE OF PA, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2024

Unfortunately, Pennsylvania courts have not clearly answered the question. … Seems simple enough, but the School makes three arguments to establish breach.