Case law

CHADWICK v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2023

The regulations provide that "no railroad shall certify a person as a qualified locomotive engineer for an interval of more than 36 months.” … Litow’s decision to place Plaintiff on “Medical Hold” was clearly the result of Plaintiff’s July 20, 2020 Periodic Health Assessment and Dr.

Di Loreto v. Costigan

600 F. Supp. 2d 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2009

must be engaged in longstanding business in the forum state, such as marketing or shipping products, or performing services or maintaining one or more offices there; activities that are less extensive than that will not qualify … Clearly, the intent of § 7419 is not to prevent creditors— subject to judgment by the Liquidator— from opposing the Liquidator’s collection efforts.

DIDONATO v. STANLEY BLACK & DECKER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2022

Plaintiff clearly testified that the electric cord became wrapped around the spindle shaft of the Polisher. (Id.) … Calderon’s expert report further established that Calderon examined, measured, and photographed the Polisher. (Id. page 4.)

First Trust & Savings Bank v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.

112 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1953

Laden & Company, a qualified appraiser, as well as a letter from PAC enclosing check in payment of a prior note being replaced by the new note. 9. … In accordance with established practice, Zanesville returned note SY-266 and the Fidelity safekeeping receipt issued in connection therewith directly to PAC.

In Re Orfa Corp. of Philadelphia

170 B.R. 257 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1994

In order to qualify for the relief available under § 105(a), the movant must properly apply for such injunc-tive relief in accordance with the procedures set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 7065 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure … Neither based its decision upon a clearly articulated standard. Indeed, none of the eases upon which both relied announced a generally applicable standard.

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.

289 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 1968

The defendant argues that the court erred in its charge that the conditional or qualified privilege with which the defendant was clothed as a news medium reporting the news 3 could be abused by a showing of something less … We won’t have anything to do with you.’ ” The reasons given by the plaintiff’s customers for refusal to deal constituted a well-established exception to the hearsay rule: “a declaration of a present existing motive or reason

HARRAGHY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2026

(b) All applications for employment within the commonwealth shall contain the following notice which shall be in clearly legible print: “It is unlawful in Massachusetts to require or administer a lie … In sum, Plaintiff did not plausibly establish statutory standing to sue Aramark for omitting the lie-detector notice, so Count 2 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

ABRAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2020

A number of the individually-named City Defendants were either clearly not present on the day of Wilson’s suicide or worked at another prison facility. … immunity.

DOE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2026

In order to establish deliberate indifference, Plaintiffs must establish that Defendant’s response to Student Doe’s harassment by Mr. Geruntho was “clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” … The Court cannot say that this was a “clearly unreasonable” response.

Polischeck v. United States

535 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 1982

The plaintiff then established through highly qualified expert testimony that, had the possibility of a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage been considered, a simple, risk-free, virtually infallible diagnostic test, the lumbar puncture … Plaintiff’s expert witness was clearly familiar with the practice of emergency rooms in several Philadelphia hospitals at about the time involved.

LLOYD v. HILTON GARDEN INN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2021

To establish a violation of Section 504, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he or she is handicapped under the Act; (2) qualified for the program of benefits from which he or she had been excluded; (3) the program receives … “[D]iscrimination alone does not meet the extreme and outrageous standard,” the conduct must be “the most clearly desperate and ultra extreme conduct.” Id. at 827 (citations omitted).

SUNIAGA v. DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2025

In February 2021, Judge Robreno dismissed Plaintiff’s liberty interest claim with prejudice as to all individual School District Defendants on qualified immunity grounds. ECF 58. … Nevertheless, as the School District cannot assert a defense of qualified immunity, Owen v.

Eppley v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

789 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2011

Eppley’s treating physician/surgeon, who clearly stated there would be no ‘standing or walking for work.’” (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. 6.) … to [the administrator's] satisfaction before a claimant can continue to receive, or even qualify for, disability benefits....

Gee v. CBS, INC.

471 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1979

Smith clearly was paid the money, and clearly must have known how much she was paid. There is no allegation of any attempt to pretend to pay her more than she actually received. … Several cases establish the kinds of protection that New York law does afford performers. One kind of protection is from record privacy.

Ironshore Specialty Insurance v. Haines & Kibblehouse, Inc.

3 F. Supp. 3d 303 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2014

However, the court went on to say that “[w]hen the state law is firmly established, there would seem to be even less reason for the parties to resort to the federal courts.” Id. at 136 . … if Ironshore is ultimately found to owe a duty to defend and indemnify, CBIZ could still have breached its contractual and professional duties to H & K and RMI by not making sure that the coverage CBIZ obtained for them clearly

SUMMERS v. THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2021

Plaintiff’s Complaint clearly establishes the first three prongs. As an African American, Plaintiff satisfies the first prong. … She meets the second prong because, prior to her termination, she was employed at CHOP for twenty years and there are no allegations that she is not qualified for her job.

THACH v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2020

Specifically, Plaintiff argues that “Defendant cannot clearly demonstrate that the amount of controversy [sic] exceeds $75,000.00, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Mot. Remand ¶ 6. … But in each of the cases Plaintiff cites in support—and unlike here—the complaint identified the amount in controversy as under $50,000 specifically to establish that the case qualified for the state court’s compulsory

De Filippo v. Ford Motor Company

378 F. Supp. 456 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 1974

Defendant contends that even an agreement to deal with plaintiffs on only discriminatory terms would not qualify as a per se violation unless a purpose to exclude plaintiffs from the market was also found. … However, we feel that this evidence does not meet the other requirements established by the cases in this Circuit interpreting Rule 60(b)(2).

United States v. Dougherty

98 F. Supp. 3d 721 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2015

In this case, the evidence clearly warrants a conclusion that the defendants acted with an economic motive, but their crimes can hardly be called “white collar.” … The government, however, clearly established at the Dougherty trial *745 that overt acts were committed in furtherance of this conspiracy. .

LINS v. PENNSYLVANIA SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2023

The court must instead run an inquiry into whether the forms qualify as permissible waivers of Lins’ constitutional rights. … To any extent that this qualifies as a response on Lins’ part, the court would still have to find for the defendants.