Case law

Bowers v. Huffy Corp.

741 F. Supp. 1187 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1990

Following such a showing in a case where the non-moving party is the plaintiff and therefore bears the burden of proof, it must, by affidavits or by the depositions and admissions on file, “make a showing sufficient to establish … We believe the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties by its language of § 8541, supra, and that it has not seen fit to waive immunity for these

HEYWARD v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

We are also unable to find the officers are today entitled to qualified immunity since the Supreme Court set clearly established law mandating preservation of evidence, and Pennsylvania regulations and Police Department … We cannot grant qualified immunity to the officers on today’s record. Detective Harkins and Officer Taggart next argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from Mr.

Larry v. Penn Truck Aids, Inc.

94 F.R.D. 708 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1982

PTA’s Answer to the original complaint clearly raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. (Document 21, at ¶ 6). … Thus the June 2,1980 decision was clearly a final resolution of the seniority dispute between Larry and Maggi.

Ruffin v. Beal

468 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 10, 1978

This provision in itself is clearly not jurisdictional. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 535 , 94 S.Ct. 1372 , 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Lynch v. … Phrases such as “essentially fictitious,” “wholly insubstantial,” “obviously frivolous” and “obviously without merit” have been established as the test for jurisdiction. See Hagans v.

BURKE v. BACHERT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2024

However, because Defendants Devers and Fritzinger affirmatively raise a qualified immunity defense, we first determine whether the right at issue was clearly established.4 “An official sued under § 1983 is entitled … to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Schwartz v. County of Montgomery

843 F. Supp. 962 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 1994

Schwartz of any of his constitutionally protected rights, privileges or immunities. … A government policy or custom, in turn, can be established in two ways.

Bryson v. United States

463 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1978

Screening And Admissions Policies Several specific exceptions to the FTCA’s general waiver of sovereign immunity are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 . … discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government . .This language has been interpreted to preclude actions based on “determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing

Dychalo v. Copperloy Corp.

78 F.R.D. 146 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 1978

There is no exclusionary rule in 26(e)(1) itself, and plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the justification for such an exclusion. Dudley v. … Goldberg was clearly qualified by his experience to testify in this case, just as Mr. Sargent was.

Jiricko v. Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg, LLP

321 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2004

The evidence establishes that plaintiffs claims in this case are inextricably intertwined with the state court adjudication. … As this list clearly demonstrates, plaintiffs disagreement is with Judge Allison’s handling of his Court of Common Pleas case. Id. at ¶¶ 17-19.

United States v. Norman

87 F. Supp. 3d 737 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2015

Courts have held that omissions qualify as false entries under this statute. See, e.g., United States v. … Therefore, Norman’s alleged conduct was clearly not an omission, but a type of false entry that is undisputedly covered by the statute.

STIEF v. ROBESON TOWNSHIP

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

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … constitutional right is clearly established.”

Nelson v. Thornburgh

567 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1983

qualified “without regard” to handicap. … Section 115(a) of the 1978 Amendments calls for grants to states to establish and operate comprehensive rehabilitation centers.

Santiago v. Temple University

739 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1990

A handicap, therefore, is clearly demonstrable in the absence of certain senses, i.e. the loss of hearing or sight. … This is clearly inconsistent with Congressional intent under the Act. 3. Even if the Act applies to plaintiff as a handicapped person, he is not '‘otherwise qualified” to hold the position of Patient Care Attendant.

OTERO v. Kane

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields individual state actors from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity under §1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time they acted

Taylor v. Phoenixville School District

113 F. Supp. 2d 770 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2000

To create a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must “establish that he or she (1) has a disability (2) is a qualified individual and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of that disability.” … First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

ALVARADO v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless (1) their conduct violates a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson v. … established” for purposes of qualified immunity (quoting Treats v.

Nash v. Reedel

86 F.R.D. 16 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1980

Delaney is a private citizen, who clearly was not acting under color of law by testifying at a trial. Furthermore, she was entitled to the well-established defense of absolute witness immunity. … Although a lawyer’s normal hourly rate is a convenient point of departure, it does not necessarily establish a reasonable rate for purposes of a fee petition. See Baughman v.

United States v. Sunoco, Inc.

644 F. Supp. 2d 566 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2009

The United States hereby expressly waives any immunity otherwise applicable to the United States with respect to any such substantive or procedural requirement. 42 U.S.C. § 6991f 42 U.S.C. § 6991f establishes that the United … To interpret a waiver of sovereign immunity, courts should begin by examining the plain language of the statute that potentially waives said immunity.

Coggins v. Keystone Foods, LLC

111 F. Supp. 3d 630 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2015

The intended health benefits clearly fall within the realm of an ERISA welfare *637 benefits plan. … The source of the funding is clearly the employer, Keystone, which has established this contract to provide long-term medical benefits to Plaintiffs and their beneficiaries for the rest of their lives.

Multi-Family Council of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Municipal Court of Philadelphia

541 F. Supp. 139 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1982

This sweeping statutory revision clearly contemplated a greater degree of flexibility for courts in scheduling cases. … The Lindsey Court certainly did not intend to announce that, to comply with due process, every state must adopt the timetable established by Oregon.