Case law

Cunningham v. Albright College

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2020

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege: (1) He is a member of a protected class; (2) He is otherwise qualified for … Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to establish any of four statutory defenses. See id. at 1414.

United States v. Gross

766 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 16, 1991

This requirement clearly is not met when the lawyer does not read back, or the witness does not read, what the lawyer has written. … Testimony established that a clerk typed the witnesses’ statements as they spoke. Id.

LONG

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2026

Clearly, at trial there will be robust examination and cross-examination by the parties of Clauser. Defendants, no doubt, will present him with evidence that they maintain undermines his conclusions. … But he also qualified that answer by explaining that, if the doors were opened every day, the struts would last “five or six years.”

CANADA v. SAMUEL GROSSI & SONS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2020

Supp. 3d at 716. 9 To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under § 1981, “a plaintiff must show 1) that he or she belongs to a racial minority; 2) that he or she was qualified for the position in question … City of Phila., 461 F.3d 331, 340-41 (3d Cir. 2006), as amended (Sept. 13, 2006). 12 “To establish a retaliation claim in violation of § 1981, a plaintiff must establish the following prima facie case: “(1) [he] engaged

TriState HVAC Equipment, LLP v. Big Belly Solar, Inc.

752 F. Supp. 2d 517 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2010

Whereas the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is clearly more convenient for TriState, since its principal place of business is West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, the District of Massachusetts is more convenient for Big Belly … TriState asserts that Big Belly bears the burden of establishing the propriety of the transfer.

National Union Electric Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

498 F. Supp. 991 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1980

Any recovery under these circumstances would constitute a “windfall” for Amoskeag “contrary to established equitable principles.” Id. at 727 . … As for the deterrent value of such suits and the effective immunity from punishment that the wrongdoers would enjoy, Justice Powell commented somewhat ascerbically that “if deterrence were the only objective, then in logic

Montgomery County ex rel. Becker v. Merscorp, Inc.

16 F. Supp. 3d 542 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2014

Clearly then, MERS is involved with the transfer of the note and mortgage and we find, is an appropriate party to this action. … “To qualify as a bona fide purchaser, a subsequent buyer must be without notice of a prior equitable interest.” Id. .

FELDMAN v. PEOPLE FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2020

In so doing, the district court applies a clearly erroneous standard to review a bankruptcy court’s factual findings and a de novo standard to review its conclusions of law. … Wirum (In re Straightline Invs.), 525 F.3d 870, 878-79 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We decline to expand the diminution of estate doctrine, from its established application in § 547 and § 548 cases, to this § 549 case.

SCHOFIELD v. NICHOLAS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2022

Moreover, a habeas petitioner must show that a state court’s determination of the merits of his claims resulted in a decision that was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal … Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002) (“The focus of the [] inquiry is on whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable, and we stressed in [Williams v.

United States v. Natale

494 F. Supp. 1114 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1979

Clearly, the present case does not closely resemble the Morrison situation. … A careful reading of the transcript of the trial will establish that the government attorneys’ answers were factually accurate and correct.

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY v. O'BOYLE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2023

Judgment should not be granted “unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … That said, the underlying complaint also sets forth several factual allegations highlighting mental impairments so severe as to possibly negate intent, to a point where O’Boyle’s actions could qualify as an accident.6

Legion Indemnity Co. v. CareState Ambulance, Inc.

152 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 2001

In an earlier paragraph, the complaint states that CareStat employees accepted emergency calls “despite knowing full well that they were not qualified or experienced to handle such calls.” (Id. ¶ 155.) … The court finds that both alleged negligent acts are clearly "professional services” for purposes of the whole policy. 5 .

EWING v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Here, the SAC alleges that “Defendants . . . were . . . aware that employees had difficulty finding qualified applicants for positions and would be forced to decide between filling the position or performing a background

Dorsey v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

167 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2001

“Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party … Under this standard of review, a court may not overturn an administrator’s decision unless that decision “is not clearly supported by the evidence in the record or the administrator has failed to comply with the procedures

United States v. Consolidated Foods Corp.

455 F. Supp. 108 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 10, 1978

Finally, there clearly are specialized vendors for retail frozen pies. … Clearly, the Government has made no showing that any of the SAMI trading areas are segregated from or independent of trade in other areas.

MACALUSO v. APPLE INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2023

Under the first requirement, “a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert as such.” Paoli, 35 F.3d at 741. … Eskra has participated in dozens of depositions and trials and has previously been found to be a qualified expert in federal court. See 3 Mr.

COCKERILL v. CORTEVA, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2024

Rather, once “it is established that the term ‘employees’ includes former employees in some sections, but not in others, the term standing alone is necessarily ambiguous.” Id. … Nowhere, however, does the Plan refer to corporate spin-off events as qualifying events. Id. at § IV.D.

Fidelity Bank v. Commonwealth Marine & General Assurance Co.

581 F. Supp. 999 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 1984

In Posner , a settlor had established a spendthrift trust to benefit plaintiff’s husband. The husband had defaulted on his support obligation. … jury could not find that the letters presented by Mamiye constitute an amendment of the Trust Agreement because none is executed by both Commonwealth and Fidelity. 6 Although Mamiye’s submission has not made the point very clearly

Frederick L. v. Thomas

419 F. Supp. 960 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 1976

The plaintiffs’ rights were clearly defined by the statutes and regulations. We now consider the defendants’ contention that all LD’s in the District are receiving appropriate instruction. … The Checkpoint Center Program dated January 1974 states: “The Centers are not to admit youngsters who qualify for any of the Special Education classes.” Plaintiffs Exhibit 6, p. 1. 4 .

MARBET v. JOHN DOE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2025

§ 1915A(b)(1), or that “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief,” id. § 1915A(b)(2). … Any amended complaint must clearly describe the factual basis for his claims and how each defendant he names was personally involved in the alleged denial of his rights.