Case law

CALLOWAY v. VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2025

MacKay agreed at multiple times the fingerprint reader denied what was clearly a legible fingerprint scan.” (Id.) … She further contends that “someone else” less qualified was hired and that she was treated more rudely and unfairly compared to other applicants due to her race. (Id.)

LEWIS-BEY v. SMART

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2021

The Complaint did not allege a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, did not present a request for relief, and did not clearly identify the defendants. (Id. at 3-4.) … any State or Territory or the 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

ASPIRA, INC. OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2021

The School District sought out “highly qualified” organizations to “manage” the identified Renaissance Schools. See id. at 5. … Ct. 1995) (finding there “clearly was no contract” when parties engaged in an RFP process and no contract was entered later).

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY v. ROCKINMUSIK LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2023

“Judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … “The burden is on the insured to establish coverage under an insurance policy. . . . It is the insurer, however, that bears the burden of establishing the applicability of an exclusion in an insurance contract.” Id.

BALDINI v. COUNTY OF DELAWARE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2025

First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Keller, 130 F.3d at 1108 (citing St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. … These undisputed facts establish a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for Baldini’s termination. ii.

FUHRER v. THE HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2022

A court “may not grant the motion unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quote omitted). … Vickery’s letter dated August 13, 2019, qualifies as an appeal. Even construing the letter in the light most favorable to Ms. Fuhrer, however, the Court cannot agree.

WILLIAMS v. CITY OF LANCASTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2020

The facts clearly show that Plaintiff was in the hospital at the time the Court set for jury selection and commencement of trial. … Plaintiff overcame Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as it pertained to Officer Bernot, including the denial of dismissal based upon qualified immunity.

POLANSKY V. EXECUTIVE HEALTH RESOURCES INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2019

Clearly, dismissal would serve this purpose, because disposing of the case would alleviate the burdens that the Government objects to. … Therefore, the 1989 Manual which, for the first time, clearly established the 24-hour policy, is a “substantive legal standard” under the Medicare Act.

RAMOS v. MARSH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2020

The “unreasonable application” inquiry requires the habeas court to “ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409. … Not only do I find that Judge Geroff’s application of clearly established federal law was reasonable, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), if I were to review this claim de novo I would come to the same conclusion. Mr.

SQUIRES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2025

This is clearly an insufficient basis on which to plead a RICO claim. See Maio, 221 F.3d at 501 (affirming dismissal of RICO claim for lack of standing). … A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben.

SHUKLA v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEMS

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

There is therefore a firmly established state action requirement for constitutional civil rights claims. … United States, 909 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1990) (“The FTCA clearly provides that the United States is the only proper defendant in a suit alleging negligence by a federal employee.

HOELZLE v. VENSURE EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.

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

and 20% of qualified billings for non-channel/partner businesses. … Section 2.2 clearly provides that EmployeeMax did not assume any contract of ESO’s other than those explicitly listed in Schedule 2.1(b). (Id. at 60.)

First Amendment Coalition v. Judicial Inquiry & Review Board

579 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1984

As this Court’s decisions clearly indicate, however, this protection is not for the private benefit of .those who might qualify as representatives of the “press” but to insure that the citizens are fully informed regarding … McDevitt was appointed Executive Director when the Board was established. 7 .

Allied Fire & Safety Equipment Co. v. Dick Enterprises, Inc.

972 F. Supp. 922 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1997

Mohammed, Allied’s Chief of Engineering, is not qualified to state whether Dick Enterprises followed the approved schedule since Mr. … This Article also prohibits combining disputes in order to establish a monetary claim higher than the $250,000 limit.

SI Handling Systems, Inc. v. Heisley

581 F. Supp. 1553 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1984

The results of that study clearly indicated that the Jacoby Patent No. 3,818,837 was the only significant patent. … Application of the various principles of law to the facts established at the hearing leads to the following conclusions.

Daddio v. A.I. DuPont Hospital for Children of the Nemours Foundation

650 F. Supp. 2d 387 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2009

Hannan stated that Michael Daddio’s “period of circulatory arrest was clearly prolonged over the standard hemi-Fontan operation.” Id. According to Dr. Hannan, this prolonged period caused Michael Daddio’s injuries. … Rule 702 permits parties to introduce at trial scientific opinions from witnesses who are qualified as experts by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.

AHRENDSEN v. PRUDENT FIDUCIARY SERVICES, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2022

Although plaintiffs do not make specific reference to § 1108(e) in their amended complaint, they clearly allege that there was inadequate consideration for this transaction. … In passing ERISA, Congress intended “‘that disclosure be made and safeguards be provided with respect to the establishment, operation, and administration of such plans.’” Id.

SMITH v. ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE NETWORK ANDERSON CAMPUS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2023

any State or Territory or the 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 … Smith’s ADHD diagnosis qualifies as a disability under the statute.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL & TRANSPORTATION WORKERS, SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 19 v. GENERAL AIRE SYSTEMS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2025

General Aire argues that the course of conduct between the Parties establishes that it did not agree to arbitrate the underlying labor dispute. (Id.) … In this regard, General Aire cites to the requirement that it adhere to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement for a period of six years to qualify for expungement – a period of time well in excess the date when

GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE v. WAGNER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.

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

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate if “the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rosenau v. … Wagner contends that the words “you” and “your” in the policy refer only to “the Named Insured shown in the Declarations, and any other person or organization qualifying as a Named Insured under this policy.”