Case law

Strube v. United States

206 F. Supp. 2d 677 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2002

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the Supreme Court established a two-prong test that a petitioner must satisfy to sustain a claim of ineffective counsel: First, the defendant must show that … Even if the evidence cited by petitioner qualified under Brady, the court still con-eludes that there has been no violation.

VINCO VENTURES, INC. v. MILAM KNECHT & WARNER, LLP

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

These communications are also considered extrajudicial communications that would not qualify for the judicial privilege. See Am. Compl. ¶ 285. … STAT. § 8343(a) McFillin points to two sets of statements that he alleges qualify as defamatory.

REAL-LOOMIS v. THE BRYN MAWR TRUST COMPANY

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

] was qualified for the position; (3) [she] was subject to an adverse employment action despite being qualified; and (4) under circumstances that raise an inference of discriminatory action, the employer continued to seek … The Supreme Court clearly held in Iqbal that “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

KIM v. VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2022

“It challenges the integrity of the dissertation process as a qualifying element in doctoral study in the College.” … The Graduate Handbook establishes that a termination on that basis is academic, not disciplinary.

Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.

212 F.R.D. 271 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2002

In short, the plaintiffs’ attorney must be qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and the plaintiffs must not have interests antagonistic to those of the class. Weiss v. … merits of each individual car owner’s complaints must be evaluated along with their individual driving habits and conditions, we nevertheless find from the evidence amassed thus far that the questions common to the class clearly

BROWN v. SUGARHOUSE HSP GAMING, L.P d/b/a RIVERS CASINO PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2024

A plaintiff establishes a prima facie failure to promote claim by “showing (i) that he belongs to a [protected category]; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; … To establish a prima facie claim, “the plaintiff must prove that (1) [they are] a member of a protected class; (2) [they were] qualified for the position; (3) [they] suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances

RIVERA-REYES v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2023

ECF No. 10-8 at 33 n.3 (ALJ Gauffreau noting that “he would have qualified for disability as of the alleged onset date if the prior education categories were applied in this decision . . . … Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to clearly show that SSA’s claim was entirely without color. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to clearly show that SSA has acted in bad faith in this case.

Black Grievance Committee v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

690 F. Supp. 1393 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1988

. *1397 In Hensley , the Court established two methods of fee reduction. … The third circuit held on appeal that this court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. 802 F.2d at 655.

TRACTION TIRE, LLC v. BOK LOGISTICS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2020

Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., 256 F.3d 204, 210 n.3 (3d Cir. 2001) (“qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss at the pleading stage . . . .”); Hartmann v. … Plaintiff has also established that Contract 2 was supported by sufficient consideration.

ATAIN INSURANCE COMPANY v. V2 PROPERTIES, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2022

establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” … “As a result, even the most clearly written exclusion will not bind the insured where the insurer or its agent has created in the insured a reasonable expectation of coverage.” Id.

BLYSTONE v. OWEN-ILLINOIS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2020

Blystone’s belief, nor do they claim that he had any specialized knowledge that would qualify him to testify to the presence of asbestos in the caulk. … However, the “white” descriptor in the specifications clearly refers to the color of the caulk itself, not the packaging.

Rosemont Taxicab Co. v. Phila. Parking Auth.

327 F. Supp. 3d 803 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2018

Moreover, this is clearly not an attempt at seriatim litigation of nearly identical claims. … Twp. of Warren , 626 F.3d 170 , 175 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Dombrowski , 413 U.S. at 441 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 ); see also Vargas , 783 F.3d at 971 (to qualify for the community caretaking function warrant exception, the seizure

HUBER v. SIMON'S AGENCY, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2022

Because SAI did not clearly communicate the amount owed, Huber argues, she and the Class Members were deprived of clearly communicated information that Congress has indicated they are owed. Id. at 14. … In TransUnion, the Supreme Court clarified Spokeo by noting that, at least in Fair Credit Reporting Act suits for damages, “the mere risk of future harm, standing alone, cannot qualify as a concrete harm—at least unless

Tower Insurance v. Dockside Associates Pier 30 LP

834 F. Supp. 2d 257 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2011

The insured has the initial burden of establishing coverage under the policy. Butterfield v. Giuntoli, 448 Pa.Super. 1 , 670 A.2d 646, 651-52 (Pa.Super.Ct.1995). … Clearly, the claims against Dockside in counts three, four and five are not covered by the policies. These counts state causes of action involving fraudulent conduct.

Boone v. City of Philadelphia

668 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2009

Even if liability is established, the Court concludes that there is a risk of establishing damages. … Class Counsel are qualified, experienced, and have aggressively litigated this case, thereby demonstrating their adequacy as counsel for the Settlement Class. Daniel C.

HOLLAND-CARTER v. UPMC HEALTH PLAN, INC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2024

Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position … According to Plaintiff, “[t]hat 10-day period clearly establishes the required temporal proximity, is ‘unduly suggestive,’ and is sufficient standing alone to defeat summary judgment.”

HUTCHINSON v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PRISON

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

so permanent and well settled as to establish acquiescence”).” … Any second amended complaint must clearly describe the factual basis for Mr.

Deyo v. Eck

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2023

The litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must establish that the litigant is unable to pay the costs of suit. See Walker v. … Four of these statutes clearly have no relationship to this case, and it is very much unclear if the fifth statute applies. The first statute, 11 Pa.

ROGERS v. GILMORE

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

A state court ruling is “contrary to” clearly established federal law13 “if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases.” Williams v. … § 2254, it must be “highly deferential” to the state court’s decision unless the decision is contrary to clearly established federal law, or its application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable

ALEXANDER v. SRGT. VINGALISS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 2023

Alexander also clearly alleges that by “mistreatment,” he is referring to the use of excessive force against these inmates, including the “frequent unreasonable and/or excessive use of a restraint chair.” … App’x 103, 109 (3d Cir. 2014) (finding in the context of a claim for qualified immunity that “[t]he amended complaint specifically alleges that the supervisory defendants were aware of a 2008 jury finding that Nassan was