Case law

Delgado v. McTighe

442 F. Supp. 725 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 1977

Although the Board is clearly not an “employment agency”, even under the broad definition of Title VII, 8 the plaintiffs correctly point out that the Board does employ a sufficient number of people to qualify as an employer … [This] make[s] appropriate our consideration of equitable relief even though the defendants would be immune from liability in damages for their administration of the challenged procedures [citing cases].

Worth & Co. v. Getzie

11 F. Supp. 3d 484 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2014

Land ownership, a bedrock form of property right which predates the Constitution, is clearly deserving of the “fundamental” label. See DeBlasio v. … Finally, count five of Worth’s complaint will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) because of sovereign immunity under Pennsylvania law.

WILLIAMS v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2022

Wetzel must be dismissed because Defendant Wetzel is entitled to qualified immunity.12 Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary … clearly established law at a high level of generality.”

Banghart v. Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania

542 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1982

Further, plaintiff is clearly not a member of a group which has historically been the victim of discrimination. … Plaintiff’s allegations clearly fail to satisfy either of these requirements.

Robinson v. Fetterman

378 F. Supp. 2d 534 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2005

These are clearly established constitutional principles, and no reasonable police officer could have believed to the contrary. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The Constitutional principles involved in this action are well established.

PSOTA v. NEW HANOVER TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2021

Qualified Immunity: Violations of Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights ............49 b. Qualified Immunity: Whether Right Was Clearly Established .....................51 2. … Qualified Immunity: Whether Right Was Clearly Established Whether the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the retaliation is a separate question to be answered.

Presseisen v. Swarthmore College

71 F.R.D. 34 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1976

This Court is of the view that plaintiff’s cause of action, although tangentially related to contract rights, is more clearly in the nature of a personal injury action. … than another, but whether that individual is considered less qualified, not because of his or her own worth, but because of discrimination forbidden by Title VII.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

419 F. Supp. 1022 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1976

Clearly the Philadelphia Plan is color-conscious. … Accordingly, I decline CWA’s invitation to abolish the “best qualified” standard for promotion established by its collective bargaining agreements with defendants. 35 The defendants argue that the intervenors, insofar as

ARMSTRONG v. UNKNOWN OFFICERS

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

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity analysis: whether Plaintiff’s right was clearly established when it was allegedly violated on January 19, 2018.

ROSADO v. DUGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2022

immunity. … In particular, an officer is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff demonstrates (1) the violation of a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established when the officer allegedly violated it

Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc.

189 B.R. 882 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 1995

With respect to the “clearly erroneous” standard, the Supreme Court has stated, “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the … found the plan to be qualified.

United States v. Plasser American Corp.

57 F. Supp. 2d 140 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1999

The corporation would not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government.”) (emphasis in original); see also H.R. … Passenger Corp., 831 F.Supp. 442, 446 (E.D.Pa.1993) (not entitled to benefit of qualified immunity doctrine); Held v. Nat’l R.R.

In Re Flonase Antitrust Litigation

795 F. Supp. 2d 300 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2011

Judge Bennett's TRO thus does not necessarily establish that GSK's lawsuit had an objective basis. … In order to qualify as a "pattern or practice" of successive filings, however, the number of petitions must be voluminous.

David v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

451 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1978

The complaint, however, clearly alleges negligence in “maintaining and/or replacing” the street lights in question. Complaint 17(a). … I note, however, that this point apparently has not been re-examined since the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania abolished municipal tort immunity in Ayala v.

Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. United States

352 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2005

On December 17, 2002, SNTG received confirmation that it had been given a “marker” establishing its first place in line for the Amnesty Program. … A review of what transpired in the negotiations reveals that the date when SNTG ended its participation was never clearly established. 11 .

Kerrigan v. Maxon Industries, Inc.

223 F. Supp. 2d 626 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2002

Mot. to Exclude Testimony of Expert Witness Novicelli at 7) does not establish his ability to testify as to the design and implementation of the proposed hydraulic line safety device and is not sufficient to qualify him to … Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1238-39 (3d Cir.1985), the Third Circuit suggested three additional factors: the degree to which an expert testifying is qualified, the relationship of a technique to more established methods of scientific

RICHARDSON v. BARBOUR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2020

“[T]he importance of resolving qualified immunity questions early ‘is in tension with the reality that factual disputes often need to be resolved before determining whether defendant's conduct violated a clearly established … Defendants have qualified immunity if their conduct did not violate “a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

City of Philadelphia v. Public Employees Benefit Services Corp.

842 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1994

The court may enter judgment on the pleadings only if the moving party clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … However, I need not construe the scope of the statutory immunity, because even if I assume that the statute provides complete immunity for investment losses incurred in the Plan, I still find that the City may have suffered

Frederick Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ahatov

274 F. Supp. 3d 273 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2017

We also conclude that Frederick met its burden by establishing that the cross-liability provision clearly and unambiguously precludes coverage for bodily injury to an insured. … We agree with Frederick that Dubinsky does not qualify as an “additional insured” under the Frederick policy. 16 The Frederick policy clearly provides that in order for a person to qualify as an “additional insured”, there

MILLER v. GOGGIN

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

Defendant Orner claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. (Id. at 14.) … Indeed, “‘qualified immunity’ is not a talismanic phrase that relieves Defendants of their burden to show that their actions did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.”