Case law

In Re Catanella and EF Hutton and Co.

583 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 1984

Applying the standard established in SEC v. W.J. … No conceivable reading of the statutory definition would support a conclusion that securities accounts qualify as “enterprises.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (4).

MOSS v. SAL LAPIO, INC.

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

Ala. 2019) (“[S]ediment . . . appears to qualify as ‘rock’ or ‘sand’ and, therefore, is also a ‘pollutant’ under the Act.”); N.C. Shellfish Growers Ass’n v. Holly Ridge Assocs., LLC., 278 F. … However, the CWA clearly requires that the federal or state government have diligently prosecuted “a civil or criminal action in a court.” 33 U.S.C.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. New Horizont, Inc.

250 F.R.D. 203 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2008

Mental impressions of the lawyer regarding the facts enjoy nearly absolute immunity.... … See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b) ("A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established....”).

Moreira v. Cissna

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2020

Under the tenets of Din, the consular officer’s mere citation to a valid statute of inadmissibility pursuant to which the consular officer was required to evaluate and establish specific criteria for denying Wife-Plaintiff … Because Wife-Plaintiff qualified under the “minor exception” the USCIS approved Wife-Plaintiff’s application for a provisional I-601A Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver.

Langbord v. United States Department of Treasury

888 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2012

However, Congress can override this default rule by speaking clearly to the issue. … Tripp opined that the 1933 Double Eagle would not have qualified for the exception because it was still in production and would be struck in the hundreds-of-thousands. (Tr. 209, at 64-65).

VICTAULIC COMPANY v. HiTherm, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2024

As the qualifier “sufficiently” indicates, the terms need not be comprehensively defined; instead, “an agreement with open terms may nevertheless constitute an enforceable contract.” ATACS Corp. v. … Victaulic has established at least some evidence that it provided funds to Defendants and received little to nothing in return—clearly a potential case of insufficient consideration. Second, even if Mr.

Gittelmacher v. Travelers PropertyCasualty Insurance Company

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

That means that the statutory waiver does not by itself establish a valid waiver of interpolicy stacking. Craley, 895 A.2d at 541-42. … Gittelmacher clearly and unambiguously qualifies for recovery under the second priority, as, indeed, might any number of other pedestrians, bicyclists, scooterists, or skateboarders in close proximity to motor traffic.

Alliance Bank v. New Century Bank

742 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2010

Clearly, in light of the Court’s findings discussed above, New Century’s argument fails. … See A & H, 237 F.3d at 224 (advertising expenditures are “clearly relevant” to a commercial strength inquiry).

SPIVEY v. TICE

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

A state court ruling is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if it “(1) ‘contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases’ or (2) ‘confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable … A state court’s application of clearly established federal law is unreasonable if it “identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the

FREITAG v. BUCKS COUNTY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2022

Defendants filed motions to dismiss arguing Plaintiff had failed to adequately plead his claims and that Bucks County’s employees were entitled to qualified immunity. See ECF Nos. 24, 30. … Barkes, 575 U.S. 822 (2015) (reversing only on the ground that this right was not clearly established at the time of the underlying incident).

RANKIN v. SALDUTTI, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2020

An element of the case-or-controversy requirement is that a plaintiff must establish, based on their complaint, that they have standing to bring the case. Id. … Both tangible harms and certain intangible harms qualify as concrete injuries. Id.

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2023

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”) publishes schedules of recommended immunizations for pediatric patients. Id. ¶ 22. … Indeed, while Merck relies heavily on Justice Stevens’ concurrence, that concurrence does not clearly resolve this issue in Merck’s favor.

CLEAN AIR COUNCIL v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

The NPS and DOI likewise maintain that assertion of Exemption 4 was proper because the materials at issue qualify as confidential under the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Food Marketing Institute v. … In other words, satisfying both conditions is clearly sufficient to establish confidentiality under Exemption 4, but it is less clear if and when failing to meet the second condition requires public disclosure.

SUMMERS v. THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2022

Plaintiff satisfies the first three elements: she is a member of a protected class, qualified for the position, and suffered an adverse employment action. … Defendant has clearly met its burden. Plaintiff raises multiple arguments why this reason is pretextual.

Shin Da Enterprises Inc. v. XIANG YONG

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

He argues that this single act is not sufficient to establish more than one predicate act, and it has no bearing on bank fraud or wire fraud. Id. Mr. … Pa. 1997) (finding 18 months a sufficient period of time to establish continuity); O’Keefe v. Ace Restaurant Supply, LLC, 2016 WL 127566, at *4 (E.D. Pa.

IN RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2021

§ 45(a), which these plaintiffs invoke for their Count II, does not provide for a private cause of action, and the Institutions do not qualify as consumers, the group of people that the FTC Act was designed to … In Pennsylvania, plaintiffs asserting a claim for negligence per se must demonstrate that: “‘1) the statute or regulation clearly applies to the conduct of the defendant; 2) the defendant violated the statute or regulation

Admiral Insurance Company v. Solid Waste Services, Inc. d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons et al

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2026

Id. at 13. 4 Throughout the Policy, “you” or “your” refers to the Named Insureds and any other person or organization qualifying as a Named Insured. ECF No. 1-4 at 12. … Unambiguous terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning, unless they violate clearly established public policy. Id.

O'REILLY v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2024

into consideration all of the pertinent facts.”59 Our Court of Appeals held a township’s discussion with K9 officers about the officers’ responsibilities caring for their K9 partners before changing their compensation qualifies … We may only grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings if “the movant clearly establishes” no “material issue of fact remains to be resolved” and the movant “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.

S.M. v. CHICHESTER SCHOOL DISTRICT

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

Over two years have passed since I held that his parents are likely to establish that S.M. is entitled to a residential educational placement when this matter is adjudicated on the merits and, in the meantime, will suffer … By contrast, a residential educational placement one of the “continuum of alternative placements” a school district must offer qualifying students under the IDEA. 34 C.F.R. § 300.115.

FIELDS v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

Sept. 29, 2006) (“[P]laintiff filed a response but did not address the sovereign immunity argument made by the United States. … We agree that Plaintiffs have not established a logical nexus between the federal funding and the alleged discrimination.