Case law

Milner v. National School of Health Technology

409 F. Supp. 1389 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1976

This allegation is insufficient to establish state action since it is clear that there is no private school today whose students do not receive similar aid. … While the Commission was clearly entitled to wait a full 180 days after assuming jurisdiction to issue its right-to-sue letter, we feel that it was justified in taking account of the additional three-month period for attempted

LEARY v. COOK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2020

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … We consider first whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Damon Coats, Inc. v. Munsingwear, Inc.

431 F. Supp. 1303 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1977

The rule established in Remington Rand, Inc. v. … Clearly, Section 8302(a) refers to corporations that do not have certificates. Thus, as to all such corporations, service on the Department of State is proper.

United States v. Chester County Board of Assessment & Revision of Taxes

281 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1968

The question raised by the present motion is whether the house trailers, owned by non-resident servicemen on active duty are personal property under federal law and immune from state taxation under the Soldiers’ and Sailors … The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that Mississippi was only entitled, “to exact motor vehicle taxes qualifying as licenses, fees or excises; the ad valorem tax, as the Mississippi Supreme Court acknowledged

MacKay v. United States Postal Service

607 F. Supp. 271 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1985

The court cannot say on the present record whether or not Mackay might establish discrimination based on handicap. … But the Government is immune from suit without its consent.

MACOLINO v. TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MORELAND

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2020

State officials performing discretionary acts enjoy “qualified immunity” from civil damages in § 1983 causes of action when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, Defendant Officer McCoy has failed to meet his burden of establishing a qualified immunity defense.

GILLESPIE v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity: “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable

Hohman v. United States

470 F. Supp. 769 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 1979

It clearly establishes that the benefits received by plaintiff should be deducted from his loss to determine net loss. … Therefore, while plaintiff incurred medical expenses totaling $37,-442.64, he received these services at no cost, such receipt clearly being a benefit from a government.

Hurt v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

806 F. Supp. 515 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1992

and lack of statutory notice. 23 PHA argues that, ás ah agency of the Commonwealth, it is immune from suit under the eleventh amendment. 24 However, a public agency does not qualify for eleventh amendment immunity based … Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 953 F.2d 807 (3d Cir.1991) (SEPTA does not qualify for eleventh amendment immunity).

STEWART v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The immunity analysis is twofold: the court must determine (1) whether a constitutional or statutory violation exists and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of injury. Id.

McGovern v. MVM, INC.

545 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2008

That physician either accepts the CSO as medically qualified or informs the CSO that his or her status is “not medically qualified.” … The Wilson decision is clearly disposi-tive of this claim. 475 F.3d 166 .

Eric H. Ex Rel. John H. v. Methacton School Dist.

265 F. Supp. 2d 513 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2003

The treatment used to control his bronchitis has further suppressed his already fragile immune system. Because his immune system has been significantly compromised, Eric has received no vaccinations. … To establish a violation of § 504, plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) [Eric] is “disabled” as defined by the Act; (2) he is “otherwise qualified” to participate in school activities; (3) the school or the board of education

Kennelly v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

208 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2002

Hamadani’s notes and testimony clearly establish that Mr. Kennelly could not have returned to work in any position after his breakdown and, thus, there is no material dispute of fact with respect to this issue. … exceed its benefits,” summary judgment is only appropriate where plaintiffs’ “proposal is either clearly ineffective or outlandishly costly.”

Pokrandt v. Shields

773 F. Supp. 758 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1991

It is well established that state judicial entities are not “persons” within the meaning of section 1983 and, therefore, cannot be sued under section 1983. Mattas v. … In an effort to establish the jurisdictional predicate of state action, plaintiff alleges a vague and ambiguous conspiracy among defendant Warner and other defendants who clearly were acting under color of state law.

Atkins v. City of Reading

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2024

McClure is not entitled to qualified immunity. Sgt. McClure maintains, inter alia, that he arrested Plaintiff based on probable cause, and even if he did not have probable cause, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … McClure is not entitled to Qualified Immunity.

Kiniropoulos v. Northampton County Child Welfare Service

917 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2013

Under the McDonnell Douglas scheme, plaintiffs alleging race or national origin based employment discrimination must first establish a prima facie case by showing: (1) they are members of a protected class; (2) they are qualified … In order to plead successfully a cause of action under section 1983, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to establish the deprivation of some constitutional right, privilege, or immunity. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Ara Services, Inc. v. School District of Philadelphia

590 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1984

The Board’s acting general counsel advised the Board on April 16, 1984 and May 14, 1984 that ARASERVE’s bid was the lowest responsible bid fully meeting the specifications and that ARASERVE was a qualified bidder. … City of Philadelphia, No. 84-1826, slip op. at 9-10 (May 25, 1984): Under Pennsylvania law it is well-established that only a taxpayer has standing to enforce compliance with the requirement that public contracts be awarded

MALDONADO v. FISCHER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Additionally, if Defendant Fischer did violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, then he would not be entitled to qualified immunity, as these rights were clearly established at the time of the violation.

Gerber v. Sweeney

292 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2003

Defendants assert that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that defendants are free from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The court need not reach the issue of qualified immunity because summary judgment is proper on the underlying Eighth Amendment claims. 4 .

Dickerson v. United States Steel Corp.

439 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1977

That case held that discrimination can be established if it is shown: “(i) that (an individual) belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; … Clearly, the second most important element of this cause of action is proof of a conspiracy. Under Griffin , the law clearly reaches conspiracies between private individuals. In Lohr v.