Case law

PAINAWAY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ACN 151 146 977 v. MAXRELIEF USA, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 2023

MaxRelief USA has not pointed to sufficient facts that could establish that these cease-and-desist letters were sent for “a purpose for which [the injunction] was not designed.” … MaxRelief USA’s relationships with customers to sell pain- relief products therefore qualify as the types of business relationships protected by the tort of intentional interference with prospective contractual relations

BUTAKIS v. NVR, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2025

NVR has identified 77 individuals, who qualify as settlement class members. (Doc. … Kenney, Esq., of Sauder Schelkopf LLC—are qualified to “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

Datto v. Harrison

664 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2009

A employer establishes an “official position” when it “unconditionally” makes an adverse employment decision and communicates that decision to the plaintiff. Id.; see also Watson v. … Cases involving retaliation for exercise of Title III rights, involving public accommodations, have been few and less clearly reasoned, but have denied individual liability.

EARLS v. SUPERINTENDENT SCI-HUNTINGDON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2019

A petition for habeas corpus may only be granted if: (1) the state court’s adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision contrary to, or involved in an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as … A person’s rights under the Confrontation Clause are implicated when “a contested statement by an out-of-court declarant qualifies as testimonial[.]” United States v. Berrios, 676 F.3d 118, 127 (3d Cir, 2012).

United States Ex Rel. Boelter v. Cuyler

486 F. Supp. 1141 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 29, 1980

Clearly, the import of this ambiguous sentence in the “dry” record depends entirely on the oral emphasis supplied by Judge Barbieri. … Even as to the confrontation claim, which is the subject of the “waiver” and “bypass” discussion infra, there has clearly been exhaustion.

ZAKHEIM v. CURB MOBILITY LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2023

The statute therefore describes two types of associations that qualify as an enterprise for RICO purposes: (1) organizations such as corporations and partnerships, and other similar legal entities and (2) “any union or … Supp. 3d at 493. 12 Here, Zakheim’s claim for unjust enrichment is clearly based on the same unlawful or improper conduct giving rise to his UTPCPL and

MONGE v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2023

However, this is a qualified or conditional privilege, rather than absolute. … The article also quotes from a posting made by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) which, in relevant part reads: “Such a use clearly violates the principles of ethical conduct established by the AAA

SHEEHAN

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

Moreover, while Lebisky’s comments may not have been physically threatening, they were clearly humiliating and more than mere offensive utterances. See Flores, 2019 WL 3801951, at *3. … However, “[t]he employer’s privilege to dismiss an employee with or without cause is not absolute . . . and may be qualified by the dictates of public policy.” Id. at 1252-53 (quoting Shick, 716 A.2d at 1233).

ECOSAVE AUTOMATION, INC. v. DELAWARE VALLEY AUTOMATION, LLC

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

Further, Nace had clearly implied to some customers that DVA was a spinoff of ESA. P-50. … There is clearly conflicting testimony as to whether trade secrets exist in this matter.

PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY v. ESHAI CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2025

Pennsylvania courts have not clearly articulated the burden of proof required to pierce the veil. … As for 2019, the distributions were not excessive; as for 2020, the record does not clearly establish that transactions categorized as “distributions” represent payouts to shareholders. a.

B. v. ABINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2020

Under Section 504, recipients of federal funds must “provide a [FAPE] to each qualified handicapped person who is in the recipient’s jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the person’s handicap.” 34 C.F.R … Under Pennsylvania law, school districts must: 1) implement a “public outreach awareness system” to notify the public of its special education services; 2) establish a screening system to identify children requiring such

Chrysler Credit Corp. v. B.J.M., Jr., Inc.

834 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1993

In the instant case, we find that Chrysler Credit Corporation’s security interest(s) clearly takes priority over those of the Madison Bank. … Specifically, § 9312(e) reads: "In all cases not governed by other rules stated in this section (including cases of purchase money security interests which do not qualify for the special priorities set forth in subsections

PAC-WEST DISTRIBUTING NV LLC v. AFAB INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2020

marks, this provision clearly does 12 AFAB insists that this IRON HORSE mark was also at issue in the prior litigation. … AFAB contends that “all evidence of public record clearly establishes that [Pac-West] is marketing and selling ‘poppers’15 under its [m]arks that contain Isobutyl Nitrite.”

MALCOLM v. REGAL IDEAS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2021

To establish a manufacturing defect, a plaintiff must prove that “a seller (manufacturer or distributor) placed on the market a product in a defective condition.” … Jadczak clearly testified that the ladder suddenly “snapped” underneath Mr. Malcolm. (Ex. 7, 29:17).

SIMONS v. BROWN

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

And he has not established the presence of any procedural irregularities resulting in fundamental unfairness. … “The manifest disregard standard requires more than legal error” and will justify vacation of an award only where an arbitrator’s decision flies in the face of “clearly established legal precedent, such as where an arbitrator

OLIVER v. ARAMARK FOOD INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2023

DISCUSSION To establish a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts, which if proven, establish: (1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of … Est. of 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.”)

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

926 F. Supp. 1233 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 1996

VS Stores is incorporated in the State of Delaware and is qualified to do business in all states except Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana and South Dakota. … We are guided by the well established rule of Morgan v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT NO. 23 v. A.F.

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

To establish a violation under Section 504 or the ADA, a plaintiff must show that he or she “(1) has a disability; (2) was otherwise qualified to participate in a school program; and (3) was denied the benefits of the … In this matter, Parents’ claims clearly arise under Part B.

HENDERSON v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY "PHA"

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2023

In general, to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position in question; (3) she suffered an … , custom, or usage, of any State. . . 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

Lawler v. Laidlaw Carriers Flatbed GP, Inc.

875 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2012

At trial, this Court clearly ruled that “[a]s it relates to Mr. Rapucci, I am not going to strike his testimony. I don’t think it is speculative.” (Tr. 118:8-10, August 3, 2011.) … It is a well established principle that the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial is left within the sole discretion of the trial court.