Case law

In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation

999 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2014

Vellturo’s report demonstrates that even hedged costs were not immune to market influences during the conspiracy period. … Vellturo’s theory, while accepted by the court for purposes of qualifying Dr.

Mulder

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2026

a handbook legally binding contractual significance, the handbook or an oral representation about the handbook must in some way clearly state that it is to have such effect.” Luteran v. … To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: 1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; 2) she is otherwise qualified to | perform the essential functions of the job, with or without

Gress v. Freedom Mortg. Corp.

386 F. Supp. 3d 455 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2019

Moreover, the Supreme Court's holding clearly did not establish some new "bright line" rule as it relates to specific jurisdiction. … Trust , 411 Pa. 492 , 192 A.2d 394 (1963) ) ("When interpreting contract language, specific provisions ordinarily will be regarded as qualifying the meaning of broad general terms in relation to a particular subject.").

Bennett v. Shoemaker

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2023

, a plaintiff must plausibly allege: “(1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities … It is well settled that prisoners do not qualify as a suspect class for equal protection claims. See Abdul-Akbar v.

Stoller v. College of Medicine

562 F. Supp. 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1983

Occasionally, prior work as an undergraduate or graduate student may qualify the student for exemption from this project. … The topics included various aspects of normal and abnormal growth and development, immunizations, etiology of jaundice and problems in the physical examination of children.

Peay v. Rivello

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2025

Thus, “Section 1983 imposes civil liability upon any person who, acting under the color of state law, deprives another individual of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United … The retaliation claim will proceed as Peay has clearly set forth sufficient allegations to state a retaliation claim against Defendants Watt and Ellenberger.? 2 Defendants invoke the same decision defense.

Geronimo v. Pottsville Ford

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2024

However, the motion will be analyzed primarily in accordance with the statement of facts provided by Pottsville Ford, as their factual assertions are clearly supported with citations to the record. … Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 313 (3d Cir. 1999)) In this case, the record is clearly devoid of any such communication.

Housing & Redevelopment Insurance Exchange v. Fudge

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2025

On its face, it clearly does not prescribe any limitations with respect to participation in the prospective QPIE’s insurance programs. … Looking to other sections of the Housing Act, Congress has proven itself capable of clearly and specifically describing scenarios in which a nonprofit entity is exclusively or wholly owned or controlled by

Tomlin

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

, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … Although Smolke is the only defendant who moved for summary judgment, the record clearly shows that all defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor for Tomlin’s failure to exhaust administrative

In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation

81 F.R.D. 516 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1979

Clearly, neither the work product doctrine nor the attorney-client privilege relates to such discussions. … The Court does not believe that a transcript of immunized testimony given by certain of the witnesses at the trial of United States v.

Robert Joseph Lewis Price v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

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

Plaintiff’s removal motion fails to qualify under any of these provisions, as discussed further below. … To qualify for removal pursuant to Section 1442, a removing party must establish that he is an officer of the United States or a person acting under an officer of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1442; see Pennsylvania v.

Gibbs v. Prime Care Medical

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

(“Only ‘persons’ are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, medical departments, or private medical companies generally do not qualify as ‘persons’ for purposes of Section 1983.” … Here, Gibbs does not allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by PrimeCare that would potentially establish a plausible Section 1983 suit against it.

Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2020

Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages Against the Commonwealth Defendants is Barred By Sovereign Immunity. … The R&R recommends finding that Plaintiff’s request for damages against the Commonwealth Defendants is prohibited by sovereign immunity.

Biear v. Holder

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2023

To qualify, they must either require that qualifying matters be “withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue,” 5 U.S.C. … MLAT “establishes particular criteria for withholding”: whether either party to the treaty 40.

Jordan v. Arnold

408 F. Supp. 869 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1976

Neither will it establish what treatment prisoners ought to receive unless glaring abuses of constitutional rights or established laws and policies promulgated in the field are demonstrated. … These cases establish that there was no cruel and unusual punishment in segregation settings allowing for daily exercise, but this does not, ipso facto, establish the principle that lack of daily exercise is cruel and unusual

Myers v. Little

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2024

To succeed on a Rule 12(c) motion, the movant must clearly establish that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. … While a period of two days has been found be sufficient to establish causation, see Farrell v.

McMorris v. Williamsport Hospital

597 F. Supp. 899 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1984

The record clearly belies any assertion that such a tie exists in this case. … Although concerted action clearly must be established in a Section 1 case, see text at 913-915 infra, this element of the tying arrangement may be proven in the instant litigation without reference to Gouldin’s contractual

Delhagen v. McDowell

703 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2010

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The Court will separately issue a scheduling order establishing the remaining pretrial deadlines and scheduling this matter for trial. 1 .

United States v. Serafini

7 F. Supp. 2d 529 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 1998

The government sought and obtained a grant of immunity for his testimony. When Mr. … The cases cited by the government, however, are not clearly on point.

Kao

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2025

To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff’s evidence “must demonstrate: ‘(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or … Defendants challenge the second factor of a prima facie case, whether Kao is qualified for his position, arguing that Kao is not qualified because he poses a direct threat to patient 4 This standard was first established