Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,177 results
0.89s
IN RE: OCUGEN, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2023
Third, Plaintiff fails to establish that Mr. … Forrest’s statement clearly addresses the appendix rather than the full guidance.
Cited 0 timesUnknown204 F. Supp. 544 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 1962
The literal language at 231-232 of 129 F. 2d has apparently been qualified by later decisions such as Nagler v. Admiral Corp., 248 F.2d 319, 324-326 (2nd Cir. 1957). 13 . … Secatore’s Inc., 246 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1957), relied on by plaintiff, are clearly distinguishable from the situation presented by this record.
Cited 28 timesPublishedBarnes Foundation v. Township of Lower Merion
982 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1997
a public conditional use process in which the ambulance company would have to establish compliance with fifteen requirements. … immunity.
Cited 15 timesPublishedSamoff v. BUILDING & CONST. TRADES COUN. OF PHILA.
346 F. Supp. 1071 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1972
concerning representation cannot appropriately be raised, or where the employees within the preceding twelve months have made known their views concerning representation, both the employer and the employees are entitled to immunity … These facts clearly distinguish Operating Engineers from the present case where the record supports the Council's conclusion that it is in no position to (and has no intention of) seeking representative status.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2019
Clearly, abundant case law holds that the jurisdiction of this court in this type of proceeding is to order condemnation only. … Furthermore, the Landowners clearly received adequate due process in front of the FERC.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2019
Clearly, abundant case law holds that the jurisdiction of this court in this type of proceeding is to order condemnation only. … Furthermore, the Landowners clearly received adequate due process in front of the FERC.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBrennan v. National Telephone Directory Corp.
850 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1994
Defendants now claim that they are entitled to summary judgment on count one because plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … In this case, plaintiff argues that she filed her complaint with EEOC on October 6, 1992, which was clearly within the 180 day deadline.
Cited 48 timesPublishedAtlantic Richfield Co. v. Blosenski
847 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1994
To apply the traditional narrow rules of successor liability in the instant case would “frustrate congressional purpose by exempting from the operation of the Act a large class of persons who are uniquely qualified to assume … EWI argues that, in Smith Land, the third circuit “has clearly indicated that it is unwilling to expand the law beyond the traditional principles of successor liability.”
Cited 28 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2021
Eleventh Amendment Immunity Mr, Serrano-Mufioz asserts claims against the State Troopers in both their official and individual capacities. … Even under “less stringent standards,” the pro se Complaint does not allege facts sufficient to establish a cause of action for excessive use of force. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2019
Clearly, abundant case law holds that the jurisdiction of this court in this type of proceeding is to order condemnation only. … Furthermore, the Landowners clearly received adequate due process in front of the FERC.
Cited 0 timesUnknown496 F. Supp. 991 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1979
To the extent that what is said in the balance of my opinion suggests deficiencies with respect to the ultimate vindication of the Miranda rights of Grullon or Mejia, I want it clearly understood that these are not to be … The Fifth Circuit has very recently qualified its Priest rule, limiting itself to the situation in which “prior to any questioning, the suspect makes an unequivocal request for an attorney’s presence, as was done in Priest
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2020
established federal law. … Having reviewed the record, this Court agrees with Judge Sitarski that these findings are not contrary to clearly established federal law, nor are they based on unreasonable factual determinations.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2021
But Alchem has not shown a clearly defined, serious injury. … This attorney argument is not a specific, clearly- defined injury that warrants the Court shielding information from public view.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2022
Schillinger, 761 F.2d 921, 929 (3d Cir. 1985) (a litigant must show “intentional or purposeful discrimination” to establish an equal protection violation). … Although Perry vaguely alludes to “mental health” and “mental/emotional health” disabilities he allegedly shared with the officers and paramedics, (ECF No. 2-1 at 2-3), he does not clearly identify these disabilities
Cited 0 timesUnknownEqual Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
365 F. Supp. 1105 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1973
If the record constituted the third factual situation, supra, clearly CWA would have the right to intervene as a “person aggrieved.” … employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work
Cited 49 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2019
Clearly, abundant case law holds that the jurisdiction of this court in this type of proceeding is to order condemnation only. … Furthermore, the Landowners clearly received adequate due process in front of the FERC.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAbraham v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
321 F.R.D. 125 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2017
whether any borrower was qualified for the hypothetical “but-for” modification calling for a higher monthly payment. … must only establish that they are “similarly situated.”
Cited 5 timesPublishedMILLER v. CHESTER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF CHESTER
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2024
) (permitting claim against defendant in his individual capacity to proceed event though “[plaintiff] did not check the box indicating a desire to sue [that defendant] in his individual capacity” where the allegations clearly … To allege that he is a “qualified individual with a disability,” Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2024
) (permitting claim against defendant in his individual capacity to proceed even though “[plaintiff] did not check the box indicating a desire to sue [that defendant] in his individual capacity” where the allegations clearly … claimant must prove at least deliberate 10 To the extent Plaintiffs are suing the named Defendants in their official capacities, the Supreme Court has held that Title II of the ADA “validly abrogates state sovereign immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownTURNER v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2022
§ 1915A(b)(1), or that “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief,” id. § 1915A(b)(2). … Turner clearly states in his Complaint that he does not intend to challenge his conviction in the instant lawsuit. (Compl. at 13.) Rather, he asserts that he only seeks access to the evidence in question.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna