Case law

Southco, Inc. v. Fivetech Technology Inc.

982 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2013

Corp. v. Loctite Corp., 474 F.2d 1391, 1394 (2d Cir.1973); Marvin Glass & Assocs. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 448 F.2d 60, 62-63 (5th Cir.1971); M.O.S. Corp. v. John I. … Southco requested an oral hearing on August 19, 2013, and as of November 7, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has scheduled a reexamination hearing for December 18, 2013.

Robson v. United States

279 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1968

Collateral attacks are obviously permitted when the Board had no jurisdiction of the person or of the crime or when acting far afield of its statutory powers. … Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), and Weeks v. U.

Vassallo v. Clover, Division of Strawbridge & Clothier

767 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 1990

Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 646 , 650 (3d Cir.1981); Bosa v. Board of Commissioners, No. 89-1480, slip op. at 2 (E.D.Pa. July 7, 1989). … In Cruz v.

Generella v. Weinberger

388 F. Supp. 1086 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1974

Brown v. United States, 419 F.2d 337, 341 (8th Cir. 1970); Carter Products v. … In Nelms v.

United States v. Bond

334 F. Supp. 1025 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 1971

See United States v. Fioravanti, 412 F.2d 407 (3d Cir.), cert, denied sub nom. Panaccione v. … the bag, which now weighed 70 pounds, and attempted to board the plane under the name “Lewis”.

Harris v. Pernsley

654 F. Supp. 1042 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 1987

In Girsh v. … See Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305 , 315 (7th Cir.1980); In re Real Estate Title and Settlement Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 633, Slip Op. at 29 (E.D.Pa.

Evans v. Chichester School District

533 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2008

Brown v. Muhlenberg Twp., 269 F.3d 205, 214 (3d Cir.2001) (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 , 109 S.Ct. 1197 , 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989)). … In Brown v.

Cutler v. Graduate Hospital

717 F. Supp. 338 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 1989

In addition, the common law of Pennsylvania with respect to prospective operation of statutes has been stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Philadelphia Retail Liquor Dealers Association, et. al v. … Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, et al, 360 Pa. 269 , 62 A.2d 53 (1948): A general law may, and frequently does, originate in some particular case or class of cases which is in the mind of the legislature at the time, but

Nadeau v. Henry Disston & Sons, Inc.

65 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1946

Since plaintiff began his employment in February, 1943, the applicable regulation is that issued by the Administrator, October 12, 1940, effective October 24, 1940 ( 5 F.R. 4077 ), as Title 29, Chapter V, Code of Federal … employees will be given particular weight, and “(D) who customarily and regularly exercise discretionary powers, and “(E) who is compensated for his services on a salary basis at not less than $30 per week (exclusive of board

EQUINOX SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC. v. Airgas, Inc.

158 F. Supp. 2d 485 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2001

See Lotto v. … July 11,1994) (stating that a party alleging fraud in support of a motion to reopen a judgment must demonstrate such fraud by clear and convincing evidence) (citing Brown v. Pennsylvania R.R.

WIKER v. Lancaster General Health

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2024

McNelis v. Pa. Power & Light Co., 867 F.3d 411, 415 (3d Cir. 2017); Deane v. Pocono Med. Ctr., 142 F.3d 138, 145 (3d Cir. 1998) (en banc). … Count V, asserting claims for retaliation, shall remain.

Clayman v. Jung

173 F.R.D. 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1997

R. 430(a)—Note; Deer Park Lumber, Inc. v. … In Romeo v.

Peek v. United States

38 F. Supp. 826 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 1941

See Ingersoll v. Sargeant, 1 Whart., Pa., 337; Birdsell v. Brennan, 21 Pa. Dist. & Co. R. 583. … This characteristic clearly distinguishes the case from that of an ordinary annuity: The distinction is made plain in the opinion of the Board of Tax Appeals in Clise v.

Thomas v. Zimmerman

583 F. Supp. 701 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 29, 1984

Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir.1980). … Commonwealth v. Brown, 494 Pa. 380 , 431 A.2d 905 (1981); Commonwealth v. McCloud, All Pa. 204, 383 A.2d 894 (1978); Commonwealth v. Little, 432 Pa. 256 , 248 A.2d 32 (1968).

WHITEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2025

Harper v. Sullivan, No. 89-4272, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2168, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991); see also Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998). … Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Evans v. Beard

639 F. Supp. 2d 497 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2009

On June 1, 2005, the Board of Probation and Parole issued a Notice of Board Decision informing Evans of same. (Paper No. 12, Ex. F.) … In Wolff v.

United States v. Fluellen

396 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1975

In United States v. … V.

Mitnik v. Cannon

784 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 1992

See also, Anoka Orthopaedic Associates, P.A. v. Lechner, 910 F.2d 514, 517 (8th Cir.1990); and Brown v. Roth, 729 F.Supp. 391, 396 (D.N.J.1990). In Chambers v. Kaleidoscope, Inc. … Mary Ann Pensiero Inc. v.

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation

278 F.R.D. 112 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2011

United States v. Rockwell Int’l, 897 F.2d 1255 , 1265 (3d Cir.1990); see United States v. … Co. v. Deere & Co., 261 F.R.D. 127, 140 (E.D.Mich.2009); accord WebXchange Inc. v.

In Re Botany Industries, Inc.

463 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1978

Donegal Steel Foundry Co. v. Accurate Products Co., 516 F.2d 583, 587 (3d Cir. 1975). … Harris v. Washington, 404 U.S. 55, 56 , 92 S.Ct. 183 , 30 L.Ed.2d 212 (1971) (per curiam). The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to the decisions of the bankruptcy courts. Katchen v.