Case law

HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY OF DELAWARE v. THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION

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

The 2013-14 Policy entered into by Devereux and Homeland clearly defined a claim as “a written demand received by an insured for monetary damages resulting from a Wrongful Act or Occurrence.” (ECF 49; Third Am. … Both decisions are explicit on this point; in Cope, the court states, “[w]hether Provider knew that the Amended Summons was a claim for medical malpractice does not establish that Provider had notice that the...claim qualified

Cooper v. Califano

81 F.R.D. 57 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1978

He later received a notice of determination, dated August 26, 1976, that stated in part: “You do not qualify for husband’s benefits because you do not meet a requirement of the law. … Putting aside the issue of numerosity for the moment, the proposed class action clearly meets both the commonality and the typicality requirements of Rule 23.

Washington v. Lehigh County District Attorney's Office

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 2021

But “because [Washington] has failed to establish that the evidence from the victim's autopsy was available when he filed his fifth PCRA petition, [Washington] did not establish a right to additional DNA testing under … 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

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.”

FISHER v. THE BOEING COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2025

His behaviors clearly violated [Boeing’s Labor Recording Practices Policy], which defines the requirements and responsibilities for all Boeing employees regarding labor recording practices. … FMLA leave can qualify as an ADA protected activity when an employer knows, or has reason to know, that the leave is not based on a one-time event. Thomas v.

BOND v. BEARD

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2021

In 1993, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting a victim during the course of a robbery of a fast-food establishment in 1991.2 Bond v. Beard, Civ. A. No. 02-08592, 2006 WL 1117862, at *1 (E.D. … “A motion that seeks to add a new ground for relief . . . will of course qualify.” Id.

HOUSER v. FELDMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2022

The burden of establishing the applicability of an affirmative defense rests with the defendant. In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 622 F.3d 275, 292 (3d Cir. 2010). … In so arguing, Feldman posits that only “cell and drug therapies” tested upon the model could qualify as trade secrets.

A & H Sportswear Co. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc.

167 F. Supp. 2d 770 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2001

They clearly held their own on the public relations front. MIRACLESUIT was mentioned in more articles and seen in more television spots. … When all of these circumstances are present, trademark infringement is clearly established and a senior user should receive some relief. Id.

FATA v. LONG

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

Section 1915 accords judges “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless[,]” including claims that describe “fantastic … A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v.

WARREN HILL, LLC v. NEPTUNE INVESTORS, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2020

VAP was established in 2011 as a qualified purchaser to purchase accounts receivable from vendors of the State of Illinois under the Vendor Payment Program (“VPP”), a program instituted … The State, at some later time, repays the qualified purchaser and includes a substantial interest penalty.

FANTAYE v. BLINKEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2025

To establish standing, “a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant . . . (3) that is likely redressed by a favorable judicial … For reasons that neither Party clearly explains, however, he cannot schedule one.

NICASTRO v. MCMULLEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2022

Section 1983 establishes liability only for a “person who, under color of [state law]. . . … We need not answer that question here, however, because the arresting officers clearly had probable cause to arrest [the criminal defendant].”).

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.

WYATT v. DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND PAROLE

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

Wetzel and Garner, in their official capacities, are also entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. … To establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on conditions of confinement, a prisoner must establish that prison officials’ acts or omissions denied him “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.”

VURIMINDI v. ANHALT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2020

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the United States Supreme Court “established a principle of abstention when federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding.” Yang v. … The Younger requirements are clearly met in this case. First, Vurimindi’s PCRA petition is still pending.

Littles v. Lieberman

90 B.R. 700 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 1988

Price was not established to be other than factual. Therefore, though with some misgivings, it is credited by the court.” Defendant objected to the term “some misgivings”. … It was defendant who chose to have Fleet, immunized through the Fleet Settlement, confess fault. In addition, while § 1692j was not specified, plaintiff’s claim fell under § 1692 et seq.

United States v. ONE (1) SIG SAUER, MODEL P320, 9 MM SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL BEARING SERIAL NUMBER 58C008744

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2020

In contrast, drug use that is “remote in time or an isolated occurrence” does not qualify an individual as an unlawful user. … Claimant’s deposition testimony establishes that he knew he used marijuana.

ZOHNI v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2020

In the April hearing, Zohni was “presented a copy of her flight arrangements . . . which clearly established . . . [her] 2 Wright was closed on January 3, 2014 due to a snow day. Defs.’ … Zohni’s Prima Facie Case of Discrimination The plaintiff’s prima face case requires evidence that: (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) plaintiff was qualified for her position; (3) plaintiff

JACOBS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2021

Pointing to a four-factor test established by the Third Circuit in Ingram v. … Section 1991 of the Statutory Construction Act states that its definitions apply “unless the context clearly states otherwise[.]” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1991.

Rolite, Inc. v. Wheelabrator Environmental Systems, Inc.

958 F. Supp. 992 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1997

The pleadings clearly imply that such statements or discussions took place. … Clearly, the gravamen of the Amended Complaint as a whole is unfair competition, not defamation. B.