Case law

Hill

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2022

However, the ALJ clearly cited “cervical and lumber MRIs.” Further, the 2018 MRIs cited by Hill are consistent with the ALJ’s analysis of the evidence. … Instead, it need only contain credibly established limitations. Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 614-615 (3d Cir. 2017); Rutherford, supra.

Dawes v. Philadelphia Gas Commission

421 F. Supp. 806 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1976

This dilutes, to some extent, the force of the Jackson analysis of the “property” issue as applied to the instant case, for both factors were clearly intertwined in that decision, 483 F.2d at 759 . … constitutional rights sought to be protected here have, by definition, a value exceeding $10,-000; or (3) apply the Hague rule, but with such great elasticity that broad, conclusory, and unsupported allegations of injury will qualify

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

ROYSTER v. MAHALLY

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

On appeal, Royster claimed that the PCRA court erred when it (1) “in a [R]ule 907 intent to dismiss ruled [his] PCRA untimely without having a hearing on timeliness when the petition clearly states it invokes the exception … qualify for this exception.

CHISM v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

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

Similarly, unexpected occurrences caused by inaction may qualify as accidental. See id. … State Farm has established that Ms. Chism’s claim is not covered because it falls under at least one of the Policy’s exclusions.

VELEZ ENTERPRISES LLC v. KVK-TECH, INC.

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

ECF 161-1 at ¶ 61; but see ECF 168-3 at ¶ 61 (denying that “KVK was not aware of the need for additional consultants at this time for the KVK Project because OQSIE’s March 9, 2020 Proposal clearly and unambiguously established … Defendants argue these are clearly settlement discussions, inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408.

HEAGY v. TERRA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2025

Heagy’s request for an injunction ordering the Board members to grant him parole clearly falls into the category of § 1983 claims barred by Wilkinson, and not the exception. … The timing of the allegedly retaliatory behavior relative to the constitutionally protected conduct may establish a causal link between the two for purposes of establishing motivation. See Watson, 834 F.3d at 422.

RAMSAY v. NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2019

" • "The Department did not intend for this percentage to establish a benchmark. … find that Plaintiff has sufficiently established that she is indeed a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA despite her prior academic successes and her

Moore v. Angie's List, Inc.

118 F. Supp. 3d 802 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2015

The declaration of an Angie’s List official does not qualify as such an “undisputedly authentic document” nor do the customer reviews which the defendant urges us to consider. … Clearly, the FAQs that Moore cites are not part of the Membership Agreement, and therefore any divergence from those representations made therein cannot be considered a breach of the Agreement.

TILLMAN v. MARLER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2021

Allegations of medical malpractice and mere disagreement regarding proper medical treatment are insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. See Spruill, 372 F.3d at 235; see also Lopez v. Corr. … R. 3 Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

CONSUMER INSURANCE USA v. HUNTLEIGH DEALERSHIP SERVICES, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2022

It is clear, based on unambiguous language, that only qualifying occurrences transpiring during the coverage period are covered. … By twisting the term “use” into a limitless conveyor of unspecified liability, Huntleigh turns a blind eye to other logical sections of the policy that clearly provide limits to coverage.

Polysius Corp. v. Fuller Co.

709 F. Supp. 560 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1989

In the first place, Claim 1 qualifies the 2 to 1000 micron range by using the word “approximately.” Second, Fuller’s interpretation is totally impractical. … Balancing these limited levels of materiality with little or no evidence of intentional or grossly negligent conduct on the part of Schonert 8 I find that on balance Fuller has not clearly proved intentional or grossly negligent

Chanbunmy v. Astrue

560 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2008

In order to qualify for benefits, a claimant must be classified as “disabled” under the Act and the accompanying regulations. … There is no evidence to establish the “C” criteria of the listings.

Astech International, LLC v. Husick

676 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2009

; and (4) with respect to all six counts, plaintiffs cannot establish damages with a reasonable degree of certainty. … [t]he onus of showing this lies upon him who seeks to escape the consequences of prior laches, and he ought to show it clearly. Pl.’s Br. at 18 (citing Livingston, 1847 WL 4906 , at *3) (emphases added by plaintiffs).

SMITH v. ONSITE NEONATAL PARTNERS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2023

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to “clearly identif[y] [a] claim for relief” in their Complaint, and that Plaintiffs’ allegations as to Defendants’ conduct have no “discernible nexus” to the legal theories … 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

COUSINS v. SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

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

However, if the alternative forum does not permit litigation of the dispute or the remedy provided is “so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all,” the difference in the law may be given substantial … To establish prescriptive jurisdiction, plaintiffs must demonstrate one of the following: injury to an American seaman or a seaman with American dependents; injury in American territory; American defendants; an

TATE v. PHILLY SHIPYARD, INC.

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

To succeed on a retaliation claim under the FMLA, a plaintiff must establish that he or she: (1) “invoked [the] right to FMLA-qualifying leave”; (2) “suffered an adverse employment … There are times, of course, when it is clearly within the ken of lay persons to appreciate the legal problems and consequences

THOMPSON v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC

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

In order to establish a claim of FMLA interference, a plaintiff must establish: (1) . . . she was an eligible employee under the FMLA; (2) the defendant was an employer subject to the FMLA’s requirements … Accordingly, under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, to establish a prima facie case for “retaliation . . . under the FMLA, the plaintiff must [initially] prove that (1) she invoked her right to FMLA-qualifying

FATA v. AMANTINE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 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.” Id. at 327. … A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v.

Resources for Human Development, Inc. v. Lower Providence Township

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2025

2 claims as an “ongoing” state action is now before this Court, raising the question of whether a removed action can still qualify … Abdication of the obligation to decide cases can be justified under this doctrine only in the exceptional circumstances where the order to the parties to repair to the state court would clearly serve an important countervailing