Case law

COLEMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2026

Little and Nicholson “clearly observed the atrophy in [his] right hand, the only ordered treatment was for [him] to see the physical therapist.” (Id.) … Little and Nicholson “clearly observed the atrophy in [his] right hand, the only ordered treatment was for [him] to see the physical therapist.” (Id.)

MURRAY v. JOHNSON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2023

Consequently, [Murray] clearly did not file his petition within sixty days of the date his claim could have been presented, in violation of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). … A motion that seeks to add a new ground for relief . . . will of course qualify.” Id. at 532.

TAVERNA v. PALMER TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2020

Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981) (“[A] municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”). … Discovery will determine whether Tuskes qualifies as a state actor. Finally, to the extent that Mr.

Walter v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

434 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2006

“The first and third standards quite clearly apply to rail the same as they do to bus, but the second standard is somewhat more difficult to apply in the rail context.” … Nevertheless, the Court concludes that the statutory and regulatory language of the ADA clearly exempts commuter rail from paratransit eligibility.

MCDOWELL v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2022

McDowell also asserts that she has been denied her right to “establish a home” and raise her children. (Id.) She does not clearly specify the relief she seeks from the Court. II. … “A dismissal under the in forma pauperis statute also qualifies as an adjudication on the merits carrying preclusive effect for purposes of any future in forma pauperis actions raising the same claim.”

LEWALD v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2025

Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability for the purposes of this Motion. ECF No. 130 at 8. … The fourth element is clearly not met. Plaintiff has failed to allege or provide evidence that his disability was the sole cause of his denial of work accommodations and his work placement, as discussed below.

ASHTON WOODS HOLDINGS L.L.C. v. USG CORPORATION

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

On appeal, a district court judge's conclusion on a Daubert challenge is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be overturned only if the decision “rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion … clinician and less than fully credible witness, qualifie[d] as an expert” under the liberal standard for qualification).

DEARDORFF v. CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2023

The arbitrator also found that respondents in that arbitration, CSNC and CSSG, established that Hill was “unjustly enriched and overpaid due to improper overreporting of his hours worked” but did “not establish fraud, theft … The Court found that Deardorff and CSPA clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator, not to the Court.

ROSENBERG v. NASSAU LIFE & ANNUITY COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2022

The policies offered by PHL Variable’s affiliate companies during the relevant period, if any, are clearly matters “within the defendant’s knowledge or control.” … affiliates offered qualifying plans at the time of conversion and it failed to tell the Trust about those options.

GEDEON v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

The special factors present here clearly counsel against extending Bivens to cover a Fifth Amendment conditions of confinement claim brought by a pretrial detainee against these type of defendants. … For example, Gedeon’s claims against the United States, the United States Marshal Service, and FDC Philadelphia, an agency of the Bureau of Prisons, are barred by sovereign immunity.

Lambert v. Blackwell

962 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1997

N.T. at 1007, 1013-14 (April 7, 1997); N.T. at 1014 (“Clearly, there is a wall against contacting experts”). … Due process of law is a summarized constitutional guarantee of respect for those personal immunities which, as Mr.

McCoy v. United States

96 F. Supp. 2d 469 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2000

As is evident from its face, the plea agreement clearly articulates McCoy’s involvement in not three but ten jewelry store robberies. … Likewise, Hall testified that he consistently communicated to Shepard that section *479 1B1.8 immunity was never an option for McCoy. Id. at 107-09, 116, 123-25 .

DOE

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

However, the signed Notice of Custody Determination that the government provided to this Court after the hearing clearly establishes this contention is false. … Further, any time he is currently accruing does not qualify as a period of unlawful presence because he received employment authorization.

CASSELLI v. BRENNAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2021

P. 12(b)(6) are governed by the well-established standard set forth in Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). II. … Disparate Treatment Claims Under Title VII and the ADEA To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he is qualified for his position

Cash v. Wetzel

8 F. Supp. 3d 644 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2014

Right to Access the Courts&emdash;Count 1 “It is now established beyond doubt that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.” Bounds v. … Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1953 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 887 (2009), states clearly that the “facial plausibility” pleading standard set forth in Twombly applies to all civil suits in the federal courts.

LAWS v. BOROUGH OF LANSDALE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2024

ECF No. 31 ¶¶ 18–19. 4 The Lansdale Defendants also raise qualified immunity arguments. See ECF No. 29 at 16. 555 (2007). … “[T]he level of intent necessary to establish supervisory liability will vary with the underlying constitutional tort alleged.” Barkes, 766 F.3d at 319.

Marshall v. Fenstermacher

388 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2005

Hing, 151 Ariz. 386 , 728 P.2d 256, 264 (1985), aff'd. in part, vacated on other grounds, 151 Ariz. 403 , 728 P.2d 273, 283 (1986) (finding that acts of attorney on behalf of client were not privileged and did not provide immunity … Marshall asserts that Rumbaugh supports the existence of a claim for creditor fraud in Pennsylvania, the Court concludes that that case does not so clearly state that the tort of "creditor fraud” is actionable under Pennsylvania

Riley v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc.

913 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1995

Plaintiff was immediately given an HIV blood test to establish a baseline and subsequently tested negative for the virus twice. … appears to limit the preemptive force of its decisions to affirmatively established regulations and standards.

Ardrey v. Federal Kemper Insurance

142 F.R.D. 105 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1992

As plaintiffs have conceded in their papers, there have been instances where the Fund (and as a result its beneficiaries) has clearly benefitted from the DRG system. … The Court is satisfied that plaintiffs' attorney is qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the instant litigation.

United States v. Caputo

633 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1986

It declined to follow Jacobs because there was no established practice in the Third Circuit of giving target warnings. … These conversations, according to the government, “clearly indicated” that defendants would lie before the grand jury. Id. at 6. Defendants object to the issuance of the sham subpoena on three grounds.