Case law

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Incus, Verlin, Hahn, Reich & Goldstein Professional Corp.

42 B.R. 960 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1984

Lawall v. Groman, 180 Pa. 532, 537 , 37 A. 98 (1897). See also Silbiger v. Prudence Bonds Corp., 180 F.2d 917 (2d Cir.1950). … They rely on language found in Brown v. Pittsburgh, 409 Pa. 357, 360 , 186 A.2d 399 (1962). Waiver is essentially a matter of intention. It may be expressed or implied.

Figuli v. STAROPOLI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2025

Co. v. Phoenix Petroleum Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9207, *5 (E.D. Pa. June 23, 1998); Eagle Traffic Control v. Addco, 882 F. Supp. 417, 419 (E.D. … Here, Plaintiffs assert that Staropoli — despite knowing that bonuses could only be awarded at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors and required both formal Board approval and the recommendation of the Chairman

Davies v. Polyscience, Inc.

126 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2001

Schafer v. Board of Public Educ., 903 F.2d 243 , 252 (3d Cir.1990); see also Glus v. G.C. Murphy Co., 629 F.2d 248 , 251 (3d Cir.1980) (stating four-part test for exception to exhaustion requirement). … See, e.g., Fullman v. Philadelphia Int’l Airport, 49 F.Supp.2d 434, 441 (E.D.Pa.1999); Brannaka v. Bergey’s, Inc., No. 97-CV-6921, 1998 WL 195660 , at *1 (E.D.Pa. Mar.30, 1998); Saylor v.

Trinsey v. Mitchell

851 F. Supp. 167 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1994

Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 , 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1279 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). … See generally LaRouche v.

DUNDON

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

v. … The 2016-17 Products Insurers maintain that Brown v. Endo was a critical fact known by Endo and therefore bars coverage for the later-filed PI/NAS Claims.

Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. United States Department of Interior

160 F. Supp. 417 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1958

Co. v. Lane, 1917, 244 U.S. 492 , 37 S.Ct. 714 , 61 L.Ed. 1275 ; Chapman v. Santa Fe Pac. R. … In the latter it was decided that the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 88 F.2d 154 , had erroneously held that a District Court, 15 F.Supp. 915 , had jurisdiction to enjoin a National Labor Relations Board hearing.

Thompson v. Groshens

342 F. Supp. 516 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1972

See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) ; Brown v. Chastain, 5 Cir., 416 F.2d 1012 , cert. den. 397 U.S. 951 , 90 S.Ct. 976 , 25 L.Ed.2d 134 (1967); Stafford v. … To be sure, whatever we do, the case of Thompson v.

United States v. Slattery

224 F. Supp. 214 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1963

Rutledge Slattery, the Company’s president, one of five directors, a substantial shareholder, a co-trustee of the voting trust which controlled the Company, and creditor of the Company, was authorized by the Board, in the … United States, 209 F.Supp. 98 (S.D.Cal. 1962); Bloom v. United States, supra; Wilson v. United States, 250 F.2d 312, 321 (9th Cir. 1958); Frazier v. United States, supra; Paisner v.

Finley v. Daly Tankship Corp.

44 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1942

Ferris, D.C., 1 F.Supp. 1018 ; Loverich v. … June v. Pan-American Petroleum & Transport Co., 5 Cir., 25 F.2d 457 ; The Santa Barbara, 2 Cir., 263 F. 369 ; see, also, Raymond v. The Ella S. Thayer, D.C., 40 F. 902 ; and Stevens v. R.

SCHRUBY v. SIANNI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2020

Later, Defendants Brown and Knapp removed Schruby from the RHU, indicating that he was going to the medical department. (Ud. at 4 56.) … See Small v. Wetzel, 528 F. App’x 202 (3d Cir. 2013). According to the Amended Complaint, Defendants Brown and Knapp arrived at Schruby’s RHU holding cell to escort him to the medical unit.

MARKEY v. CURTIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2025

Our Court of Appeals’s decision in Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington v. Tombs is instructive. … Robert Tombs requested copies of certain maps at the cost of reproduction from the Burlington County Board of Chosen Freeholders under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act; the Board told Mr.

Apicella v. Valley Forge Military Academy

630 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1985

Crew v. Bartels, 27 F.R.D. 5 (E.D.Pa.1961); Commonwealth v. Rothman, 209 Pa. 180 , 223 A.2d 919 (1966); Myers v. Sezov, 39 Pa. D & C 2d 650 (1966); Langdon v. Strawhecker, 46 Pa. D & C 2d 764 (1969). … Finally, plaintiffs John and Valerie Apicella have a contract claim against defendant Valley Forge for $2,558.76 1 for return of Jerry Apicella’s tuition, room and board.

DOE 1 v. PERKIOMEN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2022

In support of their points, they cite to two news articles which detail intense school board meetings and state that school board officials have received death threats for their positions on mandatory masking.1 Turning … School Boards Bearing Brunt of Anti-Mask Parents’ Anger, GoErie, https://www.goerie.com/story/news/2021/09/27/pa-school-board-mask-mandate/5846407001/; Justin Rohrlich, Covid Has Broken You People: Pennsylvania School District

Jefferies v. Sessions

278 F. Supp. 3d 831 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2017

In Beers v. … In McHugh v.

BURK v. WELLPATH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2024

Brown v. Lyons, 977 F. Supp. 2d 475, 481-82 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (citing Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 2009)). … .; see also Brown v. U.S. Dist. Ct., E. Dist., No. 13-7229, 2014 WL 1225878, at *1 (E.D. Pa.

Bennett v. Knauer

528 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2007

Kornegay v. Cottingham, 120 F.3d 392, 395 (3d Cir.1997). A factual dispute is “genuine” if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. Anderson v. … Brown v. Borough of Chambersburg, 903 F.2d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 1990). To satisfy the second prong of this analysis a medical need must be serious.

Grove Press, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

300 F. Supp. 281 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 1969

In Zwickler v. … Brown, 354 U.S. 436 , 77 S.Ct. 1325 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 , where an injunction procedure incorporating such guarantees was upheld.

Sarfaty v. Sarfaty

534 F. Supp. 701 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1982

In Cunningham v. … Brown v. Chastain, 416 F.2d 1012, 1013 (5th Cir. 1969). It is clear that a federal district court “possesses] no power whatever to sit in direct review of state court decisions.” Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v.

King v. Cuyler

541 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1982

See, e.g., Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 , 96 S.Ct. 598 , 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976); McClelland v. Facteau, 610 F.2d 693 (10th Cir. 1979); Durkin v. Bristol Township, 88 F.R.D. 613, 615 (E.D.Pa.1980). … Plaintiff relies upon Wright v.

Stevens v. Meaut

264 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2003

See also General Electric Capital Corp. v. … See Harris v.