Case law

Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey

497 F. Supp. 2d 627 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2007

Thus, in this situation, the robots.txt file qualifies as a technological measure effectively controlling access to the archived copyrighted images of Healthcare Advocates. … The tests for these claims require nothing more than what is required under copyright law to establish infringement.

RANSOME v. TERRA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2024

established federal law. … Thus, the use of the above standard was not “contrary to clearly established federal law.” (Doc. No. 19 at 8.)

Petrosky v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance

141 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

As the trial court had aptly explained: The accident clearly involves a continuous chain of events from the impact until the vehicles and body came to rest. … Under Pennsylvania law, “a court should not impute to an insurance company the benefit of qualifying language which it chose not to adopt.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.

NILES v. CLIFTON

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

establish a standard of materiality for any purpose whatsoever . . . … The Court cannot create a tort claim from one so clearly rooted in contractual obligations.

Cole v. United States

124 F. Supp. 3d 474 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2015

On that topic, Cole “request[s] this is be [sic] an appeal-able separate issue because no appealability is required in an Independent Action and/or Fraud on the Court which is clearly civil in Matter.” Id. at 3 . … Jan. 24, 2013) (“Because [defendant] does not qualify for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), this Court has no authority to reduce his sentence based on [the § 3553(a)] factors.”). .Cole also contends that he is entitled

EASTON v. PENCHISHEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2022

Please re-write your request more clearly and resubmit asap.” (Id. at 17.) … First, a supervisor may be liable if he or she “‘with deliberate indifference to the consequences, established and maintained a policy, practice or custom which directly caused [the] constitutional harm.” Id.

CASIANO v. RUSSELL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2021

According to Casiano, Defendant John Doe #1 “clearly tried to cover up the incident by properly housing . . . [Casiano] after the assault.” See id. … According to Casiano, Defendant John Doe #1 “clearly tried to cover up the incident by properly housing . . . [Casiano] after the assault.” See id.

Breyer v. Meissner

23 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1998

The Congressional power to exclude aliens has long been recognized by the Court “as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Id. … As Deputy Assistant Secretary of *534 State John Adams has stated, this provision “clearly discriminates against U.S. citizen mothers with offspring born before 1934.”

DUDLEY v. VISION SOLAR, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2021

Finally, Vision Solar maintains that because Plaintiffs cannot establish that Vision Solar placed the alleged calls, they must therefore “demonstrate an agency relationship” between the caller and Vision Solar in order … in his residence, in order to plausibly allege that the cell phone qualifies as a residential phone under the statute.

Daburlos v. COMMERCIAL INSURANCE CO. OF NEWARK, NJ

381 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 1974

Kane, at a later time, qualified his answers on the exchange practice. … Plaintiff has established that if the Daburloses had exchanged their original tickets at LAIA that they would have received in exchange a ticket from Los Angeles, To Anaheim/Disneyland, To Los Angeles, To Philadelphia.

JONES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2026

In Plaintiff’s response, he asserts only that Defendant Mancuso’s probable cause report “clearly states that Kevin Wagner Sr. … “Labels and conclusions” are not enough to establish a conspiracy claim. Twombly, 555 U.S. at 556.

Various v. Various

673 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2009

First, defendants apparently never sought discovery which would have established that the two non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined. … Under these circumstances, defendants have failed to show that the plaintiffs’ joinder of Oilfield Service was in bad faith or clearly fraudulent. b.

MILLER v. LEHIGH UNIVERSITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2020

Though Miller is clearly a member of a protected class, whether she was qualified for the job is less clear. … Even if Miller suffered an adverse employment action, she still cannot establish a prima facie discrimination claim.

DIPIETRO v. COLEMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2023

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”). … “A motion that seeks to add a new ground for relief . . . will of course qualify.” Id.

VONNIEDA-LAGRASSA v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d/b/a RIGHTPATH SERVICING

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

In reviewing a borrower for COVID-19 loss mitigation, the first step is to determine whether the borrow qualifies for a “Standalone Partial Claim” (“SPC”) to reinstate their mortgage. See SF Handbook at III.A.2.o.iii. … avoid the plain meaning of these two sentences by speculating as to the reason for why the first sentence includes mandatory language to claim that the second sentence also imposes mandatory duties when that sentence clearly

Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co.

248 F.R.D. 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2008

It “assures that the named plaintiffs’ claims are not antagonistic to the class and that the attorneys for the class representatives are experienced and qualified to prosecute the claims on behalf of the entire class.” … Those factors are: (1) the complexity and duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing

ALONZO v. TERRA

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

Alonzo’s state law claim against Officer Wagner, contending this claim is barred by sovereign immunity and fails on the merits, or that this Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction with respect to it. … Alonzo did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to being placed in administrative custody and does not qualify for an exception to exhaustion.

Schwartz v. Halter

134 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2001

Schwartz’s mental impairment is clearly erroneous.” (Id. at 6.) … In making this initial determination of mental impairment, “an ALJ is not required to employ the assistance of a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist,” although if the determination were made at an earlier level, such assistance

Hayes v. Ridge

946 F. Supp. 354 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 1996

They too do not qualify as irreparably harmed. … that plaintiffs have not refuted the defendants’ argument that if either the court or the CAT Fund waives the plaintiffs’ emergency surcharge requirements, the public interest will be severely harmed; as Reed’s testimony clearly

BITTERS v. NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2021

The issue is whether damage to the insured’s home qualifies as a “collapse” covered by the insurance policy. The carrier has moved for summary judgment. … In Pennsylvania, terms that are “clear and unambiguous” should be given “their plain and ordinary meaning, unless they violate a clearly established public policy.” Kurach v. Truck Ins.