Case law

United States v. Rose

113 F. Supp. 775 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1953

Nessanbaum, 3 Cir., 205 F.2d 93 . “ * * * the rule * * * does not relate to the kind or amount of other evidence required to establish that fact.” Hammer v. … It would be difficult to infer that any other testimony would qualify or explain this positive and categorical answer.”

Tufano

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

McCarthy “enjoy[] absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in [their] judicial capacity, we must decide whether the Complaint set forth allegations that, taken as true, establish that the application of … No. 7:20-CV-9346 clearly fall within the scope of their judicial duties and they acted within their 19 proper jurisdiction.

National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Corbett

25 F. Supp. 3d 557 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2014

The task force established that “[a]ll funds from the fine will follow the endowment guidelines established by the Child Sexual Abuse Endowment Task Force and flow to programs designed to prevent child sexual abuse or assist … Defendant Auditor General DePasq-uale’s argument that Colorado River abstention is warranted is limited to the following: “[i]n the present matter, there are clearly parallel ongoing cases pending.

Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania

447 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2006

A case is deemed moot when “[t]he controversy between the parties has ... clearly ceased to be ‘definite and concrete.’ ” Id. at 317 , 94 S.Ct. 1704 (citing Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. … It is well established that such a broad aggregation of citizens does not qualify as a class for purposes of § 1985(3) because “the class ‘cannot be defined simply as the group of victims of the [allegedly] tortious action

Doe v. Zimmerman

405 F. Supp. 534 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1975

Furthermore, the scheme created by the husband's consent provision fails to give any recognition to the mother’s fundamental, though qualified, right to decide to have an abortion. Cf. … Clearly, such a finding is not required for all abortions. The defects in § 6(d) are so pervasive as to render an attempt to identify and retain its untainted portions futile.

Sandt v. Holden

698 F. Supp. 64 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1988

While such trained personnel do not qualify as companions, this fact does not remove them from the category of covered domestic service employees when employed in or about a private household. … Thus, we find that the services rendered by the plaintiff were clearly companionship services as defined by the FLSA and its regulations. *68 As stated, the plaintiff argues that she provided actual care and quasi nursing

Wojtowicz v. Gichner Shelter Systems

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2024

Under Rule 12(c), judgment should be granted where the movant clearly establishes no material issue of fact exists, and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Inst. for Scientific Info., Inc. v. … A plaintiff need only identify “an accommodation, the costs of which, facially do not clearly exceed its benefits.” Walton, 168 F.3d at 670.

Rock v. Zimmerman

729 F. Supp. 398 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1990

No one disputes that even individuals who have previously formed an opinion regarding the defendant’s guilt or innocence may be qualified to sit as a juror. … But this is clearly not a case in which we can presume juror bias. See United States v. Nell, 526 F.2d 1223, 1229 (5th Cir.1976).

Nottingham v. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2021

As a threshold matter, his complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which establishes the general rules of pleading. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). … Nottingham’s complaint is sparse, but he clearly states that his claims against Judge Brann and Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick arise from “events . . .

Olszyk v. Barrasse

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2020

As the complaint in its current form does not clearly set forth any claims against the Defendants, dismissal is warranted. … Pa. 1992).4 The amended complaint must also establish the existence of specific actions taken by the Defendants and indicate the ways in which the exhibits attached to Olszyk’s complaint tend to establish the claims he

Baut v. Pethick Construction Company

262 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 1966

The designs were clearly marked with plaintiff’s name. … Aside from the contract requirements, the actions of Lippi clearly establish his part in aiding the infringement, and thus he runs afoul of 35 U.S.C.A. § 271 (b).

Loughney v. Correctional Care, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2020

To determine the sufficiency of a complaint under the pleading regime established by the Supreme Court, the court must engage in a three-step analysis: First, the court must … Moving Defendants assert that they “undoubtedly qualify for the immunity provisions of the MHPA,” and Plaintiff’s allegations “fail to rise to the level of ‘willful misconduct’ or gross negligence, as required

Romero v. Tobyhanna Township, PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2021

To establish a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the United States Constitution. Mark v. … As we have found, however, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the facts of record clearly establish that Detective Bray had probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings against

Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown

389 F. Supp. 836 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 1975

“No citizen or member of the community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts. … Curfew Established for Children under Age of Sixteen.

Johnson v. Tritt

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2021

However, in adopting the “more-specific-provision-rule” established in County of Sacramento v. … enjoy sovereign and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.”

Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Burwell

150 F. Supp. 3d 419 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2015

To qualify for the religious employer exemption as it was set forth in the 2011 regulations, an employer was required meet criteria consistent with the exemptions adopted in most states. … As a result of the cancellation, Real Alternatives’ current health care plan does not qualify for grandfathered status. Id. ¶ 35.

Walters v. County of Schuylkill

129 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2001

In order to establish a prima facie case under the ADEA, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) she belongs to a protected class — over age 40; (2) she was qualified for the position in question; (3) she suffered an adverse employment … Furthermore, we find that Defendant Hornberger as County Controller, clearly works as an individual agent for a political subdivision of the state, thus, he is not subject to the Plaintiffs ADEA claim.

Kenneth v. Derry Township School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2022

immunity. … Obenstine’s accusations Taylor emotionally abused players to the point of self-harm and engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct clearly rise to the level of defamatory. (See Doc. 35 ¶¶ 101-102).

Dukes v. Mohl

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 2022

They also claim that sovereign immunity bars Dukes’ official capacity claims. … actions “against the State itself.”52 States may waive this immunity if they choose, but Pennsylvania has explicitly not waived its immunity with respect to claims brought under Section 1983.53 There are two exceptions

HOLT v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2020

Thus, “[hligh ranking government officials are generally entitled to limited immunity from being deposed concerning matters about which they have no unique personal knowledge.” Brennan v. … The Third Circuit has yet to establish a bright-line rule for classifying individuals as “high-ranking.” See Sensient Colors, 649 F.Supp 2d at 316.