Case law

Ziggity Systems, Inc. v. Val Watering Systems

769 F. Supp. 752 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1990

Once the success of the Ziggity nipple drinker was clearly established, defendants began producing their own nipple drinker in 1983. See Trial Transcript 2/21/90 at page 185, lines 17-20. … The opinion testimony of qualified experts; 15.

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital

610 F. Supp. 1221 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 1985

The evidence presented at trial clearly showed that Pennhurst residents were not only receiving inadequate habilitation but also were regularly subjected to a number of dehumanizing practices. … McKendry in his capacity as the mental retardation program administrator for Chester County, wherein he displayed the expertise and sensitivity which well qualify him for the duties which he now assumes.

HILL v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

As the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. Cons. … . § 8521-22, its officials sued in their official capacities, are immune from suits filed in federal court. B.

LITMAN v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

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

Others are clearly state law claims. The Amended Complaint, consisting of 280 paragraphs, lumps all defendants together. … His own allegations establish that the EEOC did not issue a right-to-sue letter.

MACDOUGALL v. RHULING

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2024

The Court permitted MacDougall to file an Amended Complaint, instructing her to clearly articulate the basis for her claims against each Defendant without relying exclusively on exhibits. … F.3d at 105 (“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party asserting its existence.”) IV.

UTESCH v. LANNETT COMPANY, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2021

Turning first to the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ proposed class counsel, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP: Plaintiffs have established that their counsel is “qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed … acquisitions because “gross margins” on Lannett drugs “are clearly coming down.”

COCKERILL v. CORTEVA, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2025

The second Ursic requirement is that the Defendants, one of the largest corporations in the United States, clearly have the ability to pay. … Suffice it to say that this Court finds that they were well qualified, and they carried out their agreement to represent the Plaintiffs in this case, with great skill, dedication, excellent professional responsibility and

Cunningham v. Albright College

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

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege: (1) He is a member of a protected class; (2) He is otherwise qualified for the … Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to establish any of four statutory defenses. See id. at 1414.

Woods Servs., Inc. v. Disability Advocates, Inc.

342 F. Supp. 3d 592 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2018

her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected" by the ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a) ("No otherwise qualified … that the tenants' "brief allusion to plaintiffs' status as a manager and landlord of East Harlem properties, together with the implication that plaintiffs were "receiving" those properties pursuant to a public grant, was clearly

CYNTHIA PROITE v. OTIS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2024

Although Proite has not sought to employ the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the issue of whether elevator misleveling can occur in the absence of negligence is clearly relevant to Farinola’s opinion that an elevator “should … Accordingly, Proite, in relying upon the report of an apparently qualified expert, has done enough to show the existence of genuine issues of material fact which preclude the entry of summary judgment.

Sellers v. Contino

327 F. Supp. 230 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1971

Determination of the Class The plaintiffs Edmonds and Sellers, as well as the witness Turoski, fall within the class defined in our order of September 22, 1970, as including tenants who have an income which qualifies them … The remaining witness, William McGehean, clearly has an income in excess of the guidelines and therefore does not fall within the class as defined in such order.

United States v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2023

“More fundamentally,” the court explained, “the key question in this case is not whether held orders qualified as ‘suspicious’ under Masters' policies; the question is whether they qualified as ‘suspicious’ under [Section … Reg. at 55479 n.164.6 Distributors enjoy flexibility in designing their systems, but not in deciding if orders those systems catch qualify as suspicious. 6 The DEA may establish a statute’s contours “through a series

TALARICO v. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2022

After receiving the required paperwork, PPL determines if each DCW is qualified. ECF 219, Ex. 1, p. 59; Ex. 14 at 4417-4420. … Zavala, 691 F.3d at 537, which plaintiffs in this matter clearly do.

BYRD v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2021

Green, a plaintiff must first establish his prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: “(1) [he] is a member of a protected class, (2) [he] was qualified for the position [he] sought to attain or retain, (3) … seeking the ‘best qualified’ candidate was a sham.”

Moskowitz v. Lopp

128 F.R.D. 624 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 1989

The numerosity requirement is clearly satisfied in this case. Plaintiffs complaint avers that during the class period there were at least 6,284 registered shareholders of E.F. … The corporate attorney-client privilege is thus a qualified privilege. See Alexander, supra, 63 St. John’s L.Rev. at 368-413.

BRINK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2020

When the government's legal position clearly offends legal precedent, however, its position cannot be said to be “substantially justified.” Washington v. … But the Supreme Court did not define what ​ ​ qualifies as a “timely challenge.” See id.

TUSTIN v. CHAPMAN CHEVROLET, LLC

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

But the arbitrator’s opinion clearly considered what limited evidence might support Petitioner’s preferred interpretation and concluded that it was plainly contradicted by Petitioner’s own conduct, statements, … The well-established standard for summary judgment is set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), as described by Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

Beckett Ex Rel. Estate of Beckett v. Leavitt

555 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 2008

. § 1395 , et seq., which establishes the Medicare program. … If the ALJ should determine that Plaintiff does not qualify to be reimbursed for the cost of Mr.

BRADLEY v. EASYACC.COM, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2023

The burden is on the proponent of the expert testimony to establish “by a preponderance of proof” that each requirement is satisfied. Oddi v. … training qualify an expert.”

ROSE v. TYNDALE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2023

Rose alleges that upon arriving at his home, Tyndale sought a “$20 consultation fee” and informed Rose that she was qualified to teach his son math. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) … Rose asserts that the last text message he received from Tyndale “clearly stated she was going to turn . . . [Rose] into Lehigh County Children and Youth.” (Id. ¶ 15.)