Case law

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.

GLADDEN v. AMBLER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2022

To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must carry the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by showing that (1) he belongs to a protected class, (2) he is qualified for the position, (3) he was subject to … an adverse employment action despite being qualified, and (4) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances that support an inference of discrimination.

Vecchione v. Wohlgemuth

80 F.R.D. 32 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1978

For special purposes, the director may request funds for such person up to five hundred dollars ($500). (3) Unless a guardian has been appointed and qualified, the revenue agent shall hold, apply and dispose of all funds … As the court clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and as those facts are not even challenged by PARC, the Rule 60(b)(4) claim must be rejected as to the Vecchione I order.

HILL v. LANE

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

“A motion that seeks to add a new ground for relief . . . will of course qualify.” Id. … Rather than a “true” Rule 60(b) motion, Hill’s Motion clearly seeks a new merits determination of his Brady claim.29 His Bracey argument, however, is nothing more than a fishing expedition seeking to open the door to discover

Preemption Devices, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

559 F. Supp. 1250 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1983

However, I do not find that the brochures contained the detail necessary to qualify as a “printed publication” under section 102(b). … Within this Circuit it is well settled that fraud must be “proved clearly, unequivocally and convincingly.”

ANDERSON v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2022

To establish a prima facie claim of discrimination, an employee “must show that: (1) [he] is a member of a protected class, (2) [he] was qualified for the position [he] sought to attain or retain, (3) [he] suffered … To prevail, Anderson must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that: (1) he invoked his right to FMLA-qualifying leave; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the adverse action was

PRIKIS v. MAXATAWNY TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2024

Pa. 2022) (concluding that the plaintiff failed to state a substantive due process claim because the defendants’ conduct in relation to a zoning permit did not qualify as the “most egregious[; r]ather, this case presents … Ct. 2007) (holding that “[u]nder the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, an individual is immune from liability for exercising his or her First Amendment right to petition the government . . .

FULLMAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2024

The Court’s discovery-dispute process is clearly outlined in its Policies and Procedures, and the Court explained it to the parties during the Rule 16 conference, too. … Fullman’s statements during the July 2 conference do not qualify for sanctions under Rule 11, which applies only to a “pleading, written motion, or other paper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; see also Landon v.

CALDERWOOD v. RINSCH

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

Here, even though the November 9th text message may have signaled agreement to the October 6 price list, this unsigned writing did not incorporate that list by reference as it did not “clearly indicate that they relate … Parties may thus “establish the existence of a deal by providing the court with evidence of a down payment.” Id.

United States Ex Rel. Navarro v. Johnson

365 F. Supp. 676 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1973

At all events we wish it clearly understood that the standard here put forth depends on the considered choice of the petitioner. Cf. Carnley v. … This contention relates particularly to Ocasio, but his only convictions were for drunk driving and lottery which would not qualify for impeachment purposes under Pennsylvania law. 17 We have already enunciated the Moore

GREIST v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 2023

He quotes the Rehabilitation Act’s nondiscrimination provision, related regulations and the Social Security Act’s provision regarding designation of representative payees for benefits due qualified World War II veterans … However, the requirements to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act set forth in these cases clearly apply to not only “participating in a program” but also “receiving a service or benefit . . . .”

In re Spectrum Arena, Inc.

340 F. Supp. 755 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1971

acquired it from Mc-Closkey; (2) with the aforementioned-finding, Kalodner’s second point is inapplicable as to the purported set-off of the Debtor’s claim against Wolman; and (3) principles of equity provide no foundation for establishing … However, without in any way qualifying my previous findings at pp. 761 to 763, I nevertheless make alternative findings on the issue of Foreman’s knowledge as to the Spectrum’s claim against Wolman.

Laborers Local 1298 Annuity Fund Ex Rel. Rite Aid Corp. v. Grass

146 F. Supp. 2d 706 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2001

These Girsh factors are: (1) the complexity and duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing … Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir.1994), I do not know of clearly larger recoveries in securities class litigation. Id. at ¶ 11.

CALDERWOOD v. RINSCH

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

Here, even though the November 9th text message may have signaled agreement to the October 6 price list, this unsigned writing did not incorporate that list by reference as it did not “clearly indicate that they relate … Parties may thus “establish the existence of a deal by providing the court with evidence of a down payment.” Id.

HAINEY v. CARNEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 2022

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 … He claims that “this breach of privacy was not authorized by my consent,” but does not indicate clearly what information was allegedly disclosed or to whom.

Merchants' Warehouse Co. v. United States

44 F.2d 379 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1930

On the contrary, the shipper retained his hill of lading and with the consequent right of stopping in transit, in no way surrendered or in any way qualified his ownership of his property and in fact did nothing by marking … That test was clearly pointed out and made the decisive factor in the Baltimore case. Terminal Warehouse Co. v. U. S. (D. C.) 31 F.(2d) 951, 957 .

R.S. and R.S. v. LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2023

will need to establish supportive relationships with adults in the building where he feels safe, can let his guard down, and talk about what he needs. … The IEP’s purpose is to establish a plan for each child’s academic and functional advancement. Id. at 399–401 (citing 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV)).

Klemka v. HNL LAB MEDICINE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 2023

This could surely qualify as an “incapacity” under the FMLA, as Klemka was unable to go to work without, to her knowledge, being subject to major health threats. … To do so, the court must first look to the statute’s plain language, as the court “presume[s] that Congress’[s] intent is most clearly expressed in the text of the statute.” Id.

MCDANIEL v. BRYN MAWR BANK CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2022

The Bank’s policy states that “[o]nly one person qualifies” to receive origination credit “for any sale.” (Id.) … The parties do not dispute that McDaniel is a member of a protected class and the Court will assume she was qualified for the position she held.

Nautilus Insurance Company v. Global Staffing Solutions, Inc., et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2026

Having established the factual background, the Court will address the parties’ arguments in turn. III. … In review of the Underlying Complaint, Claimants fail to direct the Court as to where this right is expressly established in the Nautilus Policies that establishes an injured party could assert a third-party right against