Case law

DeJesus v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

384 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2005

At trial, these same witnesses strove to undo, ignore, qualify, or evade their earlier testimony. … Goldstein is exceptionally well qualified to offer expert opinions respecting the evaluation, treatment, and detention of dangerous patients. Dr.

MILLER 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.

United States v. One Palmetto State Armory PA-15 Machinegun Receiver/Frame, Unknown Caliber, Serial Number LW001804

115 F. Supp. 3d 544 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2015

As the Supreme Court explained in Roth , to have a protected property interest, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … “Quite clearly, [the Government] had [an imagined] concerted plan ... to approve Form 1 applications” such as his “which were submitted by trusts .... and later changed course.” Id.

SERRANO-MUNOZ v. ROGERS

District 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.

HILL v. CORINTHIAN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2021

Race and Religious Discrimination To establish a case of discrimination on the basis of race or religion, Ms. … Hostile Work Environment To establish a prima facie case of a hostile work environment claim, Ms.

WRIGHT v. WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP

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

established principle that municipalities “are not vicariously liable under § 1983 for their employees’ actions.” … These are conclusory allegations that clearly suffer from the same defect as the allegations Plaintiffs point to in support of an affirmative policy or custom.

Synthes, Inc. v. Emerge Medical, Inc.

25 F. Supp. 3d 617 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2014

They assert that Emerge took no action that qualified as “substantial assistance or encouragement.” … Rather, a plaintiff need only show that the defendant improperly acquired or disclosed the trade secrets — facts that are clearly established by the undisputed evidence.

OKEKE v. LNL HOME SERVICES, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2024

of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination.” McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. … To establish racial discrimination, the “plaintiff must show that: 1) [she] is a member ofa protected class, 2) [she] was qualified for the position [she] sought to attain or retain, 3) [she] suffered an adverse employment

Whetman v. Ikon

209 F.R.D. 94 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2002

As to the second inquiry, plaintiffs’ counsel clearly possess the expertise to litigate this matter effectively, as evidenced by the quality, timeliness and professional nature of their work before this court. … Robertson, 62 F.3d 553, 571 (3d Cir.1995) (actions of “directed trustee[s]” are “essentially” “immune from judicial inquiry”); id.

LIGHTY v. PHILADELPHIA DEPT PRISON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2022

and only from the use of force which was clearly excessive to the need, the excessiveness of which was 3) clearly and objectively unreasonable, and 4) the action constituted an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain … Defendants posit that the “de minimus” injury of bruising and blood inside his nose “would not qualify as a significant injury needed to prevail on an excessive force claim.” Id.

AUKAMP-CORCORAN v. LANCASTER GENERAL HEALTH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2022

Clearly, some employees should not undergo vaccination due to medical complications and must be exempt from the vaccine requirement. … If exemptions are extended to employees who have not demonstrated a legal right to exemption, that could weaken immunity amongst Defendant’s employees as a group, which in turn can lead to the spread of influenza at Defendant

PLOEGER v. TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

At some point, she was diagnosed with having an auto-immune disease, depression, and anxiety. (See Doc. No. 2-1 at 5.) … Because these events do not stand alone in this case, we cannot say that the trial court’s finding of a causal link is clearly erroneous.

THORNE v. PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK INC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2020

. § 574.8(a)(1) provides that when qualifying tire distributors or dealers sell or lease new tires to tire purchasers, these sellers must either: (1) give to the buyer a tire registration … Supp. 3d at 819, and when Congress clearly contemplated conferring a well-established substantive right to receive certain information without deception, Cartmell, 2020 WL 113829,

Buckingham Township v. Wykle

157 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2001

. *466 As plaintiff may obtain relief against defendants Wykle and Lawton, plaintiffs APA claim against defendant Mallory clearly is not a claim “for which there is no other adequate remedy.” … A MIS/CMS Committee, co-chaired by PennDOT and the DVRPC, was established.

BELFI v. WAGNER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2024

To the extent the claim is based on misrepresentations made during the course of the underlying state court litigation, it is clearly time-barred. … In any event, this conduct is clearly protected by the judicial privilege. This claim will also be dismissed. G.

In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation

322 F.R.D. 188 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2017

Defendants argue that the L & W purchasers do not qualify as direct purchasers. As a result, Defendants argue that under Illinois Brick Co. v. … Virtually all of the documents secured from Defendants would qualify as business records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6).

Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.

431 F. Supp. 2d 518 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2006

Clear and convincing evidence is required to establish inequitable conduct. Id. … Subsections (a) through (g) of 35 U.S.C. § 102 “serve as the standard by which to qualify what is and what is not considered 'prior art’ to a particular patent.” Peter S.

GLENDENING v. FAIR ACRES GERIATRIC CENTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2019

More specifically, Defendant contends that “Plaintiff cannot establish an ADEA failure to hire claim with direct evidence of discrimination[, and] is also unable to establish a prima facie claim of discrimination under … In other words, Nurse DeCeccio’s discriminatory statements qualify as direct evidence of discrimination because context and timing are both closely linked to the adverse action.

Township of Ridley v. Blanchette

421 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 1976

A prior request for a temporary restraining order was denied because of plaintiffs’ failure to establish the necessary criteria for the grant of that extraordinary remedy, and consequently construction continued, notwithstanding … The Township of Ridley, which shoulders the obligation, inter alia, of protecting the *440 health, safety and general welfare of its citizens (Complaint, ¶ 7), clearly qualifies as a proper organizational plaintiff.

Lewis v. Wilson

748 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2010

relief on a claim unless the state court’s adjudication of it: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court … When deciding whether a state court’s application of Supreme Court precedent was unreasonable, it is permissible to consider the decisions of lower federal courts which have applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent