Case law

Trethaway v. Pizano

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2024

After consideration, we agree that Trethaway cannot establish liability against the Borough. … He contends that these positions were offered to less qualified officers who were not involved in the Association, and that he and other officers involved in the Union and Association were deliberately excluded

Sludden v. United States

211 F. Supp. 150 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1962

The obvious weakness here in plaintiffs’ request is that the action taken by the Commission on February 8, and March 23, 1962, did not in either instance qualify as an order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1336 (I.C.C. … The general principles governing the exercise of state authority when interstate commerce is affected are well established. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States is supreme and plenary.

Application of Santos

400 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1975

The standard for evaluating the taint of post-illegal arrest verbal evidence was clearly established at the time of the trial of the present case, both in the federal courts and in the local Pennsylvania state courts. … Beto, 348 F.2d 823, 828 (5th Cir. 1965), qualified the weight to be accorded to it by also emphasizing that the mere passage of time could not serve to dissipate the taint, otherwise “. . . the police would be free simply

Gourely

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2026

Personal Involvement It is well established that, in Section 1983 actions, liability cannot be “predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.”27 Rather, a Section … immunity with respect to claims brought under Section 1983.38 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

Joyce Outdoor Advertising Wallscapes, LLC v. City of Scranton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2024

“In Pennsylvania, high public official immunity is a long-standing category of common law immunity that acts as an absolute bar to protect high public officials from lawsuits arising out of actions taken in the course of … Mollan, 544 Pa. 487, 497, 677 A.2d 1194 (1996) (mayor of municipality “clearly qualifies as a ‘high public official’).

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

229 F.R.D. 463 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2005

LEXIS 18110 , *9-10 (E.D.Pa.2002) (holding that interest that was not only “clearly economic in nature,” but also “qualified” in that it was “contingent” upon happening of other events, was not sufficient to support motion … This is true particularly in light of the fact that both Defendants and FTE are clearly concerned with demonstrating that intelligent design is not a religious view.

Janicsko v. Pellman

774 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1991

Unlike H 3-600 of the Illinois act, the Pennsylvania statute does not so clearly allocate all the discretion of commitment to a physician, and, in fact, uses language which suggests a degree of coercion. … possible involuntary commitment within two hours of the patient’s arrival at the facility would appear to be to protect the patient from being forced to wait an undue period of time in custody before being examined by a qualified

Martin v. Avant Publications, LLC

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

§ 1343(a)(3), which confers jurisdiction of any action commenced to redress the deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by federal law providing for the equal rights of citizens. … a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that she (1) has a ‘disability,’ (2) is a ‘qualified individual,’ and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of that disability.

Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future v. Ultra Resources, Inc.

898 F. Supp. 2d 741 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2012

Though Weiler clearly favors Plaintiffs position, the Second Circuit inserted a cautionary footnote qualifying its opinion: We note that we have ruled in the section 304(a)(1) context that plaintiffs must exhaust administrative … Though Ultra argues that PennFuture deliberately avoided Pennsylvania’s administrative appeal requirements, the Court’s view is it would be improper to abstain from exercising jurisdiction when Congress has clearly established

JH v. Dunmore School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2025

| “IT]o state a claim under Title II of the ADA, plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) they are qualified individuals; (2) with a disability; and (3) they were | excluded from participation in or denied the … generally) or section 8546 (relating to defense of official 7 immunity); and | 10 Those categories, which provide exceptions to immunity, are: 1) vehicle liability

United States v. 18.67 Acres of Land

793 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 1992

DISCUSSION The court clearly has the authority under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) to strike from a pleading “any insufficient defense”. … Plaintiff contends that the United States Supreme Court has held that decisions involving the nature or extent of a take are within either legislative or administrative discretion, and, therefore, immune from judicial review

Bih-Jing Jeng v. Witters

452 F. Supp. 1349 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1978

Plaintiffs argue that they should be granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict alleging that the evidence clearly established the negligence of Defendant Witters. … Plaintiffs argue the evidence clearly established that Defendant Witters was negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and for a violation of the assured clear distance rule.

Hause v. City of Sunbury

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2019

In addition, Defendants put forth additional arguments that: (1) Defendant Persing is entitled to qualified immunity (Doc. … immunity.

Castello v. Arbogast

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2024

Congress has not expressly abrogated this constitutional immunity with respect to federal civil rights lawsuits against the Pennsylvania State Police and the Commonwealth clearly has not waived … its immunity.

Raj v. Dickson City Borough

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2020

Defendants additionally raise a qualified immunity defense for Ranakoski. … immunity.

Cochran v. Veneman

252 F. Supp. 2d 126 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2003

There are four clearly interrelated federal programs involved: 1. … The milk marketing order program which establishes minimum prices for fluid grade milk in most parts of the country. 3.

Ungarsky

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2026

Moreover, because the law at the time was unclear, as long as there was probable cause on the harassment charge, qualified immunity would bar the other malicious prosecution claims as well. … Next, because there was probable cause for the harassment charge, Officer Weber is shielded by qualified immunity on the other malicious prosecution charges. See Rivera-Guadalupe v.

Hawley v. Salamon

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2025

First, | Hawley fails to establish causation for most Defendants. … States may waive this immunity if they choose, | but Pennsylvania has explicitly not waived its immunity with respect to claims brought under Section 1983. See 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 8521(b); Downey v. Pa.

Battle v. Marchese

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2025

Plaintiff believes that he should have been immune from charges and prosecution relating to the drug charges under the “Pennsylvania Response Immunity Act.”3 (Doc. 11, p. 6). … Thus, Plaintiff’s injuries were clearly discoverable during the limitations period as Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pleads facts that, taken as true as Plaintiff urges, establish Plaintiff did in fact actually

Gayle v. United States

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2025

Third, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Gayle failed to allege Simonson’s personal involvement in any constitutional violation and his allegations against the other Defendants consists … In addition, the plaintiff “carries the burden of proof to establish presentment of [their] claim to [the agency].” See Medina v. City of Phila., 219 F.