Case law

CLAIBORNE v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2021

Claiborne had to formally apply for a promotion, because the record clearly indicates that there were no open positions for which he was qualified to be promoted. … Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of termination based on race discrimination, a plaintiff must show that (1) he belongs to a protected class, (2) he is qualified

Thakur v. R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute

268 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2003

In addition to the PRI statements in the unemployment benefits application, Plaintiff attempts to create inconsistencies out of other PRI statements where there clearly are none. … It is clearly established in employment discrimination cases that “[pjretext is not established by virtue of the fact that an employee has received some favorable comments in some categories or has, in the past, received

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.

Petition of Martin

102 F. Supp. 43 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1951

A sounding taken at the approximate location that cable No. 15 was severed established that the depth of the water at the time of the initial striking was approximately 8 feet. … The initial striking of the cables, therefore, was clearly not the result of any negligence in the operation of the tug.

Griffith v. Mellon Bank, N.A.

328 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2004

Clearly, then genuine issues of material fact remain as to the genuineness of the certificate of deposit. … The court need not evaluate these arguments since Griffith clearly did not acquire the instrument for value and thus does not qualify for holder in due course status on that basis alone. 30 .

SPANN v. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, as part of Pennsylvania’s unified judicial system, shares in the Commonwealth’s Eleventh Amendment immunity for money damages claims filed in federal court. See Benn v. … Pennsylvania has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(b).

EADDY v. DELBALSO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2024

A decision qualifies as an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) only if “there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts … The PCRA Court’s Decision was Contrary to Clearly Established Federal Law The Pennsylvania Superior Court did not engage with the merits of Mr.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

478 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 1979

The practice of submitting documentary evidence to juries was, at the time, already long-established. … Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 , 93 S.Ct. 2955 , 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973), the Court enumerated the three factors relevant in determining whether a government program violates the establishment clause: “[T]o pass muster under the Establishment

KIVETT v. NEOLPHARMA, INC.

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

Super. 1986) (“The ordinary meaning must be attributed to the language, unless a different meaning was clearly intended.”). Mr. … Neolpharma therefore qualifies as Cediprof’s affiliate under the Lannett Agreement   and the Interim Agreement, and each agreement describes Cediprof

PITTMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2026

He alleges his sentences were aggregated pursuant to polices that allow the Parole Board “to override sentencing and parole orders of the state judicial branch” so as to ensure the Commonwealth can continue to qualify for … Pittman does not deny receiving a copy of the DC16E form.5 Even if he did not receive it, he was clearly aware his Schuylkill County sentence was to run consecutively to his Lehigh County sentence, as he acknowledged as

JRB LEE ANN BOYER, MOTHER v. QUAKERTOWN COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

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

In this case, the evidence on the record establishes the following facts as undisputed. … Moreover, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court in Payne, finding qualified immunity for the teacher because “it would not have been clear to a reasonable official that placing [the student] in

BRANDYWINE VALLEY PREMIER HOSPITALITY GROUP v. FIREMANSS FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

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

App’x 86, 90 (3d Cir. 2018) (“Pennsylvania law places the initial burden of establishing the existence of insurance coverage on the insured.”). … Ct. 2022) (finding that the insurer had failed to show that the policy at issue clearly and unambiguously prevented coverage).

Popkin v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

204 F. Supp. 426 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1962

the degree of discretion to be exercised by the court is established by the Norwood case.” … The purpose of the limitation is clearly to make the inevitably uncomfortable (for the litigant) judicial process cheaper and more convenient and, if possible, more prompt.”

Hawk Valley, Inc. v. Taylor

301 F.R.D. 169 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2014

Adequacy Adequacy is satisfied by showing that (1) class counsel is competent and qualified to conduct the litigation; and (2) class representatives have no conflicts of interests. … Rather, the Ohio intermediate appellate court concluding that “[wjhether we apply the [FCC] rules extant from the time of the TCPA or look to the law as established by the JFPA, an established business exception to the junk

PAINADATH v. GOOD SHEPHERD PENN PARTNERS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2024

City Bd. of Educ., 870 F.3d 206, 213 (3d Cir. 2017) (comments about the plaintiff’s body establish that harassment occurred because of his sex). … And though the bar for establishing “severe or pervasive” conduct is high, “[c]ourts in this Circuit have . . .

United States v. Holck

398 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2005

On cross-examination, in many instances, they qualified or conditioned and at times even contradicted the -testimony they had given on direct examination. … Overwhelming caselaw in the Third Circuit and elsewhere clearly establishes that Juror No. 6’s conduct is perfectly permissible, and does not amount to “extraneous” information, even when that experience is rather unique

PUMBA v. Madrid

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2022

frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief”). … Yet, he fails to clearly state the basis for his claims against these defendants. In this regard, there are no allegations at all about Deputy McFadden and no grievances involving him are attached to the complaint.

URBAN v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2021

This language is consistent with the standard established in the MVFRL: (c) Underinsured motorist coverage. … Urban’s statements clearly explain that the 2016 Forest River was not “self-propelled” as required to be considered a “motor vehicle” under the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code.

Taylor v. White

132 F.R.D. 636 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 1990

Clearly the statutory scheme contains different requirements for acute care facilities and nursing facilities. … They also argue that, as each suffers a unique handicap, they may not fairly and adequately protect the interests of people with different handicaps or diseases, especially those suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency

RICE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2025

Plaintiffs counter that Rule 56 should apply because the Amended Complaint and operative account agreement do not facially establish that a valid arbitration agreement was formed. Pls.’ Opp. 6. … The parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate issues related to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.