Case law

N.H. v. PHOENIXVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2021

To be entitled to private school tuition reimbursement, parents must establish: (1) the education agency failed to propose an IEP that constituted an offer of a FAPE, (2) the private … It confirmed that N.H. had a primary disability of OHI and continued to qualify as a student with Autism.

Hendricks v. Gilhool

709 F. Supp. 1362 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1989

. § 794 , provides in pertinent part: No otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or … Department of Education, the “state educational agency ... responsible for assuring that the requirements of [the EHA] are carried out.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (6); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (7); Battle, supra 629 F.2d at 278 (EHA “clearly

PURVENAS HAYES v. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2023

Plaintiff clearly engaged in protected activity by filing the original complaint, publicly exposing her employer’s alleged failure to pay overtime wages. … But, without any allegation that Plaintiff was even qualified for these positions or that she had to apply for non-comparable positions in order to find substitute employment, it is too

Kubrick v. United States

435 F. Supp. 166 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1977

Annapolis Emergency Hospital Association, note 26 supra, is apposite here: Were we to adopt a standard tied to locality for specialists, we would clearly be ignoring the realities of medical life. … As we have indicated, the various specialties have established uniform requirements for certification.

Yaw v. THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2021

Plaintiffs “must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Id. at 1547 (citing Warth, 422 U.S. at 517). … Minn. 2018) (“The fact that plaintiffs are trustees does not excuse them from well established standing requirements.”).

United States v. AMERICAN HEALTH FOUNDATION INC.

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

In one case, a “clearly observable knowledge deficit” regarding care for residents with a tracheostomy caused one such resident to pull out her own breathing tube and die. (Id. at ¶¶ 311-12.) … Colleen Johnson reviewed 27 residents’ records and reported that they were all missing a social work or activity assessment and complete immunization information. (Id. at ¶ 538.)

LETT v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

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

To establish a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA, an employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) “she is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA”; (2) “she is otherwise qualified … Holocheck’s deposition testimony establishes that she voluntarily quit the labor market when she was fired.

MARTIN v. NTT DATA, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2020

Indeed, the standard is “extremely deferential” and the arbitrator’s decision “`must fly in the face of clearly established legal precedent,’ such as where an arbitrator ‘appreciates … Again, the manifest disregard standard requires more than legal error and the arbitrator’s decision “must fly in the face of clearly established legal precedent.”

CAMPBELL v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BRYN MAWR TRUST COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2022

SERPs are non-qualified retirement plans that are required by law to be unfunded. (Doc. No. 64 at 5 ¶ 24.) … Section 6.2 clearly states that, if a Rabbi Trust had been established when a Change of Control occurred, it must be funded using the 5-Year United States Treasury Note rate.

CANNON v. GARMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2022

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence … In Vasquez, the Court of Appeals held that a use of “the other guy” in a redacted reference to the defendant was too obvious to qualify as a proper redaction under Bruton. Id. at 279-81. Mr.

Walsh v. Nursing Home Care Management Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2022

“The defendant bears the burden of establishing that his or her need for disclosure is greater than the purpose behind the privilege.” Id. at *3. … The privilege is qualified not absolute. See Scott Paper Co. v. United States, 943 F. Supp. 489, 496 (E.D. Pa.), aff'd, 943 F. Supp. 501 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

Bowman v. Wilson

514 F. Supp. 403 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1981

Clearly no waiver of jurisdiction of the District of Columbia’s Superior Court is express or implied; rather, the court is actively insisting on Bowman’s return. … This action will be taken only if the member is otherwise qualified for retention in the Army. (Emphasis supplied).

GUERRIER v. STATE FARM

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2022

After investigating the accident, State Farm concluded that the repair shop’s Mercedes was a qualified substitute vehicle under Mr. … Based on the information it had before it, State Farm clearly had probable cause to seek to recover that amount from Mr. Guerrier, who was believed to be uninsured. Mr.

HUANG v. BAI WEI LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2024

Rather, whether defendant meets the gross annual sales requirement to qualify as an enterprise goes to the merits of the claim, See Jiang v. Lee’s Happy House, No. 07-3606, 2007 WL 3105087, at *2 (N.D. … be established as outside the class if the plaintiff were to conduct even minimal class-related discovery”).

United States v. Wright

936 F. Supp. 2d 538 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2013

. - Each of the predicate mailings in this case was clearly substantive and, as discussed above, the record shows that Defendants waged a war on at least two fronts as to each count, attacking the specific-intent prong and … Lukens, 114 F.3d 1220, 1222 (D.C.Cir.1997) ("An act need not be independently illegal in order to qualify as an overt act for the purposes of a conspiracy charge.”) (citations omitted); United States v.

PEOPLES v. DELBASO

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

It determined that Dove’s misconduct did not qualify as newly discovered evidence that would warrant a new trial because Petitioner had not shown that the misconduct was related to Petitioner’s case. See id. 15. … established Federal law,” or “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

NITKIN v. MAIN LINE HEALTH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2021

Pa. 2017) (holding that a statement about “cutting salaries” was inadmissible hearsay because “a proponent of evidence under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) must first establish the identity of the declarant for admission under this … In Reynolds, we held that statements containing express assertions not offered for their truth may contain implied assertions that qualify as hearsay because the truth of the implied assertions is at issue and relevant

JENKINS v. WESLEY ENHANCED LIVING

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

Jenkins disagrees, arguing that she clearly established a prima facie case and that Defendants’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual. (Doc. … To establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination based on disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for her position, and (3) she suffered

M.D. v. COLONIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2021

To establish a violation of Section 504, Parents must prove that (1) M.D. is disabled as defined by the Act; (2) 20 she is otherwise qualified to participate in school activities; … In most circumstances, establishing a denial of a FAPE suffices to establish a § 504 claim. And, indeed, the Court has already found that Colonial’s failure to have an IEP in place denied M.D. a FAPE.

HALL v. NISBET

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2024

Hall also contends that Defendants cannot rely upon qualified immunity to protect them from liability from damages. (See id. at 13-16.) … First, a supervisor may be liable if he or she “‘with deliberate indifference to the consequences, established and maintained a policy, practice or custom which directly caused [the] constitutional harm.” Id.