Case law

Diversified Environments, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp.

461 F. Supp. 286 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1978

The parol evidence rule is clearly inapplicable here as there was no integrated written agreement between the parties that fully and completely stated the entire agreement. See, Yuhas v. … Defendant did not present any facts at trial that established a means of mitigation for the Plaintiff.

Kehoe v. Kauffman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2022

DISCUSSION In his petition, Kehoe alleges that he has “serious medical problems that absolutely does compromise his immunity defense” and is particularly vulnerable … Whether Kehoe would qualify for such a reprieve is unknown until it is requested.

Doe v. Liberatore

478 F. Supp. 2d 742 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2007

As such, the statute clearly applies to the Diocesan Defendants. … Tuttle, Sexual Misconduct and Ecclesiastical Immunity, 2004 B.Y.U.

Tech v. United States

935 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2013

The principles guiding a due process analysis are well-established in the jurisprudence of the federal courts. … As aforestated, it was clearly impossible for the IRS to identify those individuals, including Tech, that were eligible for a FET refund.

Atwell v. Lavan

557 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2008

following two es *541 sential elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct complained of deprived the Plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities … We agree with Commonwealth Defendants’ Reply Brief which states that their SMF “establishes ...

Martin v. Finley

349 F. Supp. 3d 391 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2018

"The agent's privilege is qualified... because it applies only when the agent is *411 acting within the scope of its authority." Id. … Only if conduct which is extreme or clearly outrageous is established will a claim be proven." Hoy v. Angelone , 554 Pa. 134 , 720 A.2d 745 , 753-54 (1998).

Rivera v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2023

Defendants seek summary judgment because Rivera failed to exhaust administrative remedies, because his claims fail on the merits, and because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Furthermore, an inmate may not avoid this exhaustion requirement by merely alleging that the administrative policies were not clearly explained to him. See Warman, 49 F. App’x at 368.

Christ the King Manor, Inc. v. Burwell

163 F. Supp. 3d 123 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2016

“In order to qualify for federal funding.. .a state plan must comply with the requirements of the Medicaid Act.” Christ the King I, 730 F.3d at 297 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1396a). … The opinion in Christ the King I clearly anticipates further agency proceedings; at the very least, it does not foreclose them.

Roberts v. Briggs

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2021

Harris, the United States Supreme Court “established a principle of abstention when federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding.” Yang v. … When seeking to impose liability due to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the appropriate remedy is a civil rights action. See Leamer, 288 F.3d at 540.

Keyes v. Lynch

195 F. Supp. 3d 702 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2016

Yox cites the following quotation from the proposed rulemaking issued by ATF: Furthermore, ATF has received inquiries as to whether commitments of persons under the age of 18 are qualifying commitments to a mental institution … Defendants argue their position under the two-prong framework established by the Third Circuit in United States v.

Weiss v. York Hospital

524 F. Supp. 433 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1981

In those documents, all three doctors acknowledge that they consider osteopathic physicians as well qualified as allopathic physicians generally. (Bacastow Tr. 27, Butler Tr. 15, 16, Deisher Tr. 20). Dr. … . *439 Above and beyond the failure of Defendants’ documents to establish that Dr.

S.M. v. Lakeland School District

148 F. Supp. 2d 542 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2001

Those courts that have considered instances of psychological or verbal abuse by government actors have typically held that such conduct alone was not severe enough to qualify as a constitutional tort actionable under section … Government policy or custom can be established in two ways.

O'Malley v. Dowd Marketing, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2020

“In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Plaintiff must show: ‘(1) [he] is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [he] is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the … O’Malley must establish that he is a “qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).

Pa. Dep't of Human Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

349 F. Supp. 3d 431 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2018

CMS's State Medicaid Manual ("SMM") 13 instructs States that where *446 "an activity may qualify as either a Medicaid service or an administrative activity," the State is permitted to "classify the function in either category … CMS's response brief clearly identified the issue, and Pennsylvania had the opportunity to respond in its reply brief." (DAB MATP Op., Doc. No. 12-1 at 12.)

Divkovic v. The Hershey Company

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2025

Mondelez Global, LLC, 847 F.3d 144, 151-52 (3d Cir. 2017) To establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, a plaintiff must prove | that: 1) he invoked a right to FMLA-qualifying leave; 2) his employer … As noted above to establish FMLA retaliation, plaintiff must first establish a | prima facie case comprised of the following elements: 7) he invoked a right to | FMLA-qualifying leave; 2) an adverse employment action

In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation

602 F. Supp. 2d 538 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2009

Defendants, as manufacturers and distributors of chocolate candy, qualify as “supplier^]” within the meaning of the Act. Id. § 50-624(j). … The following factors determine whether a trade practice qualifies as “unfair” under the RIUTPCPA: (1) whether the practice affronts public policy, as delineated by the common law, statutes, and “other established concepts

Wells v. Spaulding

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2022

procedure is clearly shown to be inadequate to prevent irreparable harm’); Carling v. … The FSA Time Credit Assessment clearly states that Wells is not qualified for FSA credits because he has an incomplete needs assessment in the areas of trauma, antisocial peers, and cognitions. (Doc. 5-1, p. 11).

Murphy v. Dauphin County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2022

Section 1983 “does not . . . create substantive rights; it provides only remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution or federal laws.” See Kneipp v. … Neither the Guide, which clearly forms the basis of Plaintiff’s policy-based claims, nor her well-pleaded allegations, support a reasonable inference that WRC written policy imposed mandatory consequences for an inmate

Provenzano v. RLS Logistics

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2021

“To have a successful prima facie case of disability discrimination, retaliation, or failure to accommodate under the ADA, Plaintiff must establish that []he is a “qualified individual.” Weiss v. … The evidence clearly shows that plaintiff is a disabled person under the ADAAA as well as under the pre-ADAAA standard.

Violanti v. Emery Worldwide A-CF Co.

847 F. Supp. 1251 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1994

Plaintiff alleges that he was the most senior employee in his department, but he was laid off while younger, less experienced and less qualified members of the department were retained. … We need not address that issue, since application of the Act, as amended in 1991, to impose personal liability on the individual defendants named in this case would clearly be inappropriate.