Case law

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

402 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 1975

It identifies the establishment of INCO in 1961 as one of the “History' Highlights” of the company. … Even though venue were clearly established, as here, the extension often would make valid service impossible, since process could not be issued to run for such corporations to the foreign countries of which they are ‘inhabitants

IN RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2025

The Settlement Agreement establishes that, in order to make a valid Tier 1 claim, a Class Member must attest to (1) having cancelled and replaced impacted cards and (2) the number of impacted cards replaced in response … First, while the August 1 Letter advised class members who desire to file a Tier 1 claim to “confirm that [their] financial institution cancelled and replaced qualifying cards,” and the Claim Form advised class members

ZEHRING v. SORBER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2024

For instance, a qualified immunity defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss. Eddy v. … Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., 256 F.3d 204, 210 n.3 (3d Cir. 2001) (“qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss at the pleading stage . . . .”). IV.

BARNETT v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2020

But Barnett’s pretext argument misses the point—the law clearly provides that “any technical violation of a traffic code legitimizes a stop, even if the stop is merely pretext for an investigation of some other crime.” … false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the defendants acted without probable cause and are not entitled to immunity

GREEN v. KAUFFMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2020

established [Supreme Court] law.”57 A state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court law where the state court incorrectly relies on a “different” law than one controlling the specific issue … counsel performed “deficient[ly]” and thereby prejudiced him.100 We find no basis to disagree with the Pennsylvania courts’ holding trial counsel performed deficiently if they “made errors so serious” so as to not qualify

Local No. 1 (Aca), Etc. v. Ibt, C., W. & H.

419 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 1976

We assume that more discovery will be taken, and perhaps that discovery will enable plaintiffs to establish their entitlement to permanent relief. … The alleged injury in this case is clearly imminent; the merger of Local 1 into Local 107 has been finally ordered, and that order has been reaffirmed by the GEB.

De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. Southern Illinois Internal Medicine, Ltd; and Mazhar H. Lakho v. Invasix, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026

“Even ‘if a transaction does not qualify as a finance lease, the parties may achieve the same result by agreement.’” De Lage Landen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Rasa Floors, LP, 792 F. Supp. 2d 812, 828 (E.D. … Taken together, the Lease’s terms clearly establish it is a finance lease, regardless of whether it meets the statutory requirements. See M.B. Mgmt., 888 A.2d at 900–01.

PERRY v. MEIR

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

actionable “when inmates with serious mental ills are effectively prevented from being diagnosed and treated by qualified professionals”). … Allegations of medical malpractice and mere disagreement regarding proper medical treatment, however, are insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. See Spruill v.

CHEBBANI v. SHOEMAKER

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

should be permitted to offer lay testimony to establish said causation and damages. … FTCA & Negligence The United States is immune from civil causes of action unless it explicitly consents to be sued. White-Squire v. U.S.

MENDOZA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2026

Mendoza can show she is a member of a protected class and that she was qualified for her position. DI 20-2 at 8. Instead, Dietz argues that Ms. … Lancaster Jewish Community Center Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217, 232 (3d Cir. 2007) (concluding, where plaintiff complained to director about perceived discrimination that “LeBoon clearly suffered a materially adverse action, since

MILLER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2024

A court may dismiss claims based on the statute of limitations defense when the defense appears clearly on the face of the complaint. Robinson v. … First, individuals who are policymakers may be liable under § 1983 if it is shown that “with deliberate indifference to the consequences,” they “established and maintained a policy, practice or custom which directly caused

OneBeacon America Insurance v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.

21 F. Supp. 3d 426 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2014

It is well-established that an insurer’s duties under an insurance policy are triggered by the language of the complaint against the insured, not by the cause of action pled. … Urban Outfitters also argues that the qualifier “in any manner” should result in a more expansive definition of “publication” in those policies containing that language. Id. at 16.

ANDERSON

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

This expense is clearly reasonable and caused by Anderson’s failure to appear for her deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. … Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181, 184 (3d Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the fee schedule established by the Community Legal Services, Inc. is a fair reflection of the prevailing market rates in Philadelphia).

HART-JONES v. HOUSER

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

Under the first subsection, the petitioner must show that the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). … A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law when “[it] resulted in an outcome that cannot reasonably be justified under existing Supreme Court precedent.”

Lewis v. United State Army

697 F. Supp. 1385 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1988

Lewis has failed to provide the court with, for example, evidence from someone qualified to analyze and dispute or otherwise challenge the conclusions drawn by the Army with regard to the studies. … Clearly, the wide disparity in these personnel requirements alone, without considering any specific criteria, greatly affects any individual woman’s chance of being accepted for enlistment.

In Re Flying W Airways, Inc.

341 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 1972

That the said trustees shall qualify by entering into bond to the United States in the sum of $100,000 with such sureties as shall be approved by the Court . . “11. … It is true that the writing necessary to satisfy the statute of frauds need not be contained in one document alone, as long as all the documents used are clearly related to one another. Smith v.

Becker v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A.

172 F. Supp. 3d 777 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2016

The record establishes that Defendants had no rights, under the Plan, the Indenture, .the Loan Agreement, or any other. … Instead, the Indenture clearly and unequivocally states that the ' Indenture Trustee can be held liable for “its own *802 wilful misconduct or negligence.” Id. § 11.03.

PERLBERGER LAW ASSOCIATES, P.C. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2021

PLA contends that it qualifies for protection because it did not benefit from the forged Derbyshire check. Once again, however, the situation presented here is not addressed by the Code. … breach of contract would undermine PCC § 4201(a), which provides that settlements given for items (namely the funds that are available following the deposit of an instrument) are “provisional … unless a contrary intent clearly

GRIFFIN v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2020

App’x 681, 687 (3d Cir. 2011) (“No Pennsylvania statute establishes, and no Pennsylvania court has recognized, a private cause of action for damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution.”). … Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) (“Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, . . . including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.”) (citations omitted).

Axis Specialty Ins. Co. v. Brickman Group Ltd, LLC

756 F. Supp. 2d 644 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2010

That case, however, involved an insurance policy that required the excess insurer to defend if the “bodily injury ... is included within the products hazard,” *651 without any additional qualifying language. … Curiously, neither party cites to Section II, paragraph 4 of the Axis policy, which clearly states that Axis has no duty to defend when there is underlying insurance, such as the Ace policy.