Case law

JEROME v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY

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

There is no dispute that Jerome is a member of a protected class, that he was qualified for the position of patrol officer, and that his termination constituted an adverse employment … The Fourteenth Amendment provides in relevant part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

TANNOUS v. CABRINI UNIVERSITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2024

“Under Rule 12(c), judgment will not be granted 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.” Jablonski v. … To start, the “academic freedom” statement itself is attenuated and highly qualified.

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

Novak v. General Electric Corporation

282 F. Supp. 1010 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1967

David Novack, Esquire, then counsel for the plaintiffs, to establish that plaintiff knew or had ample reason to know that he was signing a “general release”. … The Supreme Court affirmed in language clearly in accord with Van Slyke, supra. Evidence of the circumstances is always admissible in aid of the interpretation of an integrated agreement.

KIRK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2025

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when “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.” Rosenau v. … The garnishee answers and may assert certain defenses, including “the defenses of the immunity or exemption of property,” “any defense or counterclaim which the garnishee could assert against the defendant if sued by the

Norman v. TRANS UNION, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2023

Some harms are so grounded in “history and tradition” that they “readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III.” Id. … Plaintiffs’ second theory of harm also establishes a concrete injury.

RIVERA v. HARRY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2024

The AEDPA prohibits federal courts from granting habeas relief for claims adjudicated on the merits in state courts unless the decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal … Aug. 22, 2022) (“McDaniel fails to identify any specific witness or expert that his trial counsel failed to call or what such a witness could establish.

United States v. Ingersoll

26 F. Cas. 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 1837

Chauneey surrender the action to him in that character. but clearly as the attorney of the United States. … On the other hand, the judge, from his legal education and studies, is better qualified to declare and apply the law to the case.

Stout v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

957 F. Supp. 673 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1997

The Plan is also a qualified pension plan under the Internal Revenue Code. Bethlehem funds the Plan. Employees do not make any contributions to the Plan. Stipulation 5. … Each Plaintiff was physically qualified to perform the job offered at the Sparrows Point Division. Stipulation 54.

United States v. McKinney

695 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2010

The central principle established in Miranda is that “if the police take a suspect into custody and then ask him questions without informing him of [his rights], his responses cannot be introduced into evidence to establish … Good Faith Even if the affidavit did not establish probable cause to believe that evidence of Dr.

BECKER v. NOVIPAX, LLC

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

To establish a prima facie case of racial or ethnic discrimination in the employment context, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered … However, Plaintiff failed to clearly identify these alleged incidents as race-based disparate treatment.

MONTANEZ v. KAUFFMAN

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

Nor has he now established that he pursued his rights diligently, Mr. … Montanez’s motion is clearly untimely to the extent that he seeks to rely on Rule 60(b)(2). See Fed. R Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Kemp v.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno

929 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1996

The Attorney General’s commitment was qualified to the extent that she retained: her full authority to investigate or prosecute any violation of § 223(a)(1)(B), as amended, and § 223(d) as to conduct which occurs or occurred … AOL has established an online area designed specifically for children.

MCNEIL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2026

To qualify for de novo review, “an objecting party must identify specific errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis without simply rehashing arguments already raised to the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also L. Civ. … Though there may not have been penetration, the act as described is clearly sufficient evidence upon which a jury may find attempted IDSI pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S.§ 3123.

GOVAN v. AMAZON, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 2023

To state a claim of disability employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA, (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … Govan does not clearly allege what the disability is or what adverse employment actions were taken against him as a result of that disability.

JENKINS v. SEPTA

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

shifting schema the Supreme Court established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case. … Jenkins clearly has a constitutionally protected interest in not being terminated from her position as a train operator. See Dykes v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp.

MCCOWAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

Second, disclosure of this information “will work a clearly defined and serious injury” to the privacy interests of nonparties. … Mar. 12, 2014) (“It is well established that once confidential information has been published, it is no longer confidential . . . .

UZOR v. FLINK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2025

Simon’s Agency, Inc., 84 F.4th 132, 146 (3d Cir. 2023) (concluding that informational injury for the purpose of standing cannot be based on the “failure to disclose clearly and effectively” but must be based on the omission … Based on the dearth of factual allegations, Uzor has not not described any specific action taken by Defendants that would not qualify under the ordinary litigation documents exception to § 1692c(c).

The General Parkhill

1 E.D. Pa. 479 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1861

But if civil war, in truth, is its leg-al character, such other governments may lawfully treat the revolted insurgents, not as mere pirates or outlaws, but as entitled, in the war, to the same immunities as ordinary belligerants … , the letter of 9th July, 1343, above cited), or of an attempt to enter a blockaded port, saying that, in such cases, “the laws of war, as exercised by belligerents, authorize a condemnation as enemy’s property, however clearly

Beth v. Ex Rel. Yvonne v. v. Carroll

876 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1995

In order to qualify for assistance under this subchapter in any fiscal year, a State shall demonstrate to the Secretary that the following conditions are met: (6) The State educational agency shall be responsible for assuring … Muth, 491 U.S. 223 , 109 S.Ct. 2397 , 105 L.Ed.2d 181 (1989), with enactment of section 1403, which abrogated states’ eleventh-amendment immunity from suits under the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1403 .