Case law

Balliet v. Luzerne County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2024

In addressing whether a correctional officer was entitled to qualified immunity for failure to intervene in the denial of medical care, the Third Circuit held a prisoner does not have a clearly established right to have … , let alone clearly establish, a right to intervention in other contexts. . .

Talarico v. Skyjack, Inc.

191 F. Supp. 3d 394 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2016

Wyeth, 624 Pa. 231, 242 , 85 A.3d 434 (2014), permits her allegations contained in paragraph 44(h) of her amended complaint since she “is clearly and unambiguously assigning negligence to Defendants’ ‘decision to continue … The Court in Lance also held that there was not any immunity for pharmaceutical companies from negligent design defect claims “which would insulate [them] from civil liability for manufacturing and/or disseminating products

Aldens, Inc. v. Packel

379 F. Supp. 521 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 1974

Aldens is not required to qualify or register to do business in Pennsylvania. 21. … This situation is clearly controlled by the case of Commonwealth v.

United States ex rel. "Automatic" Sprinkler Corp. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.

191 F. Supp. 638 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1961

Exhibit No. 9 (Contract No. 6-1557) clearly indicates that the last requisition date was August 10, 1954. Exhibit No. 10 (Contract No. 6-1616) clearly indicates that the last requisition date was July 21, 1954. … Plaintiff having failed to clearly establish the date on which it performed the last labor or the date it furnished or supplied the last material, it necessarily follows that it has not met the ninety day requirement.

Rodriguez Garza v. Wellspan Philhaven

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2024

In order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, the plaintiff must show: “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the … Plaintiff does not clearly respond to this argument.

MacDonald v. United States

767 F. Supp. 1295 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1991

This view was echoed in testimony of defendant’s other highly qualified vascular surgeons. … Here, there clearly were material risks and alternatives to the surgery, all fully established by expert medical testimony. See Festa v. Greenberg, supra.

Hynoski v. Columbia County Redevelopment Authority

941 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2013

Such factual allegations bring DCED squarely within the definition of a state agency contemplated by the courts and immune from suit under § 1983. … coupled with timing to establish a causal link.

Washington v. Knapp

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2022

immunity with respect to claims brought under Section 1983.43 There are two exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment’s bar to private suits against nonconsenting states: (1) “Congress may abrogate a state’s immunity” and … Washington also does not allege that he lost the chance to pursue a qualifying underlying claim, i.e., a direct or collateral challenge to his criminal sentence or a conditions-of-confinement claim.47

Johnson, Sr. v. USP-Canaan

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2025

Mowatt is entitled to qualified immunity and Johnson could not establish a FTCA claim for medical negligence against the Government without expert testimony. (Id.) … Alternatively, Defendants contend that even if the Court were to determine that they violated Johnson’s constitutional rights, they would be entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 23– 26.)

In Re TMI Litigation Cases Consolidated II

911 F. Supp. 775 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1996

“clearly” speak to anything. … Gunckel qualified to testify as to his tree study.

Major

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2026

the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”30 Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983; private agencies like the ACA do not qualify … immunity with respect to claims brought under Section 1983.59 There are two exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment’s bar to private suits against nonconsenting states: (1) “Congress may abrogate a state’s immunity” and

EEOC v. Com. of Pa.

596 F. Supp. 1333 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1984

Clearly, in certain businesses, particular occupations will exist that will require a separate BFOQ analysis. … 34 would not be minimally qualified.

Bloom v. Hollibaugh

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2019

To establish a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show “(1) that he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) who was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs … Pennsylvania law provides that “the Commonwealth, and its officials and employees acting within the scope of their duties, shall continue to enjoy sovereign immunity and official immunity and remain immune from suit except

McCormick

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

However, the DOC’s Eleventh Amendment immunity “may be lost in one of two ways: (1) if the Commonwealth waived its immunity; or (2) Congress abrogated the States’ immunity pursuant to a valid exercise of its power.” … See Rauser v Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 333 (3d Cir. 2001) (indicating that inmate’s transfer to correctional facility where family could not visit could qualify as adverse action); Collazo v. Rozum, 646 F.

Duffey v. Lehman

880 F. Supp. 303 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 1995

On January 5, 1995, a telephone conference concerning the Motion for Reconsideration was conducted, and I determined that the briefing schedule established by pertinent Local Rules of Court should apply to this matter. … The CPC requirement was imposed to assure that clearly meritless challenges to a conviction could not be used to delay executions. Id.

Stockton v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2023

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when the moving party “clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Minn. … There are, however, two exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity— (1) when the State has waived its immunity; or (2) Congress has exercised its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to override that immunity

Padilla v. Miller

143 F. Supp. 2d 479 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2001

immunity. … As in this case, the law enforcement officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Lomma v. Ohio Nat'l Life Assurance Corp.

329 F. Supp. 3d 78 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2018

However, the Illustration of Benefits and the Notice are not dispositive because both contain qualifying, conditional language. … This qualified language does not conclusively compel the reading that the suicide exclusion period started anew in 2007.

Banks v. Horn

928 F. Supp. 512 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1996

In Lawson , the case in which the standard was established, the defendant claimed that his right to a speedy trial under Pa. R.Crim.P. 1100 had been violated. 549 A.2d at 109 . … Again, the defendant was unable to establish the factual basis for his claims. 575 A.2d at 951-952 .

United States v. Corcoran

872 F. Supp. 175 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1993

Quite to the contrary, physicians had prescribed provision of relatively unsophisticated items of DME which CORCORAN knew would not qualify for reimbursement. … Clearly, CORCORAN’s assignment of error in the admission of testimony that was precluded is frivolous. (iv).