Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,574 results
0.69s
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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownViolanti 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.
Cited 36 timesPublishedWARTLUFT v. THE MILTON HERSHEY SCHOOL AND SCHOOL TRUST
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2020
In order to obtain a protective order, a party must establish “good cause” for the order, which requires “a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking [to prevent] disclosure … In determining whether a party has established good cause for a protective order, courts must consider a number of factors. In Pansy v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2019
§ 1915A(b)(1), or that “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief,” id. § 1915A(b)(2). … Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[I]t is well established that ‘ignorance of the law, even for an incarcerated pro se petitioner, generally does not excuse prompt filing.’”)
Cited 0 timesUnknown349 F. Supp. 3d 451 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2018
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has clearly indicated that a repeat DUI offender is not so unvirtuous that he or she must be disarmed until a third DUI conviction in five years and, even then, the disability has an automatic … Furthermore, sovereign immunity would bar money damages claims against defendants in their official capacities. Cooper v. Comm'r , 718 F.3d 216 , 220 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v.
Disagreed with by Williams v. Barr, 379 F. Supp. 3d 360 (2019)Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2019
They also asked if a cane would qualify under this section. … Here, because Miller's specific argument relates to step three, and the record establishes that Miller uses a cane, Miller clearly does not meet the requirements of Listing 1.03.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2019
Thus, “a federal prisoner may resort to § 2241 only if he can establish that ‘the remedy by motion [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’” Bruce v. … Polk’s challenge to a sentencing enhancement clearly does not meet this threshold.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2025
retaliation claims fail on the merits, and that liability is precluded by qualified immunity. … They argue that Fann cannot establish causation for his claims and additionally raise the “same decision” defense.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2021
Barlow was not promoted to General Manager as promised, despite being qualified for the position and performing at or above expectation. Ms. … Gentry does not support immunizing an entity from a suit against its fictitious name. Feb. 12, 2020).
Cited 0 timesUnknownTownship of Susquehanna v. H & M, Inc.
70 A.L.R. Fed. 480 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1983
Rule 23(a)(4) contains two components: “(a) that Plaintiff’s attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and (b) the Plaintiff must not have interests antagonistic to those … The question of whether there was an overt act during the summer of 1978 or beyond clearly is common to all members of the class.
Cited 8 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2024
The FTCA constitutes “a limited waiver of the United States’s sovereign immunity.” White-Squire v. U.S. Postal Serv., 592 F.3d 453, 456 (3d Cir. 2010). … To succeed on a claim under Title I of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) he was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services
Cited 0 timesUnknown541 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2008
First, the court must identify the “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” applicable to the petitioner’s claims. Williams v. … “[A] federal ha-beas court making the ‘unreasonable application’ inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.”
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2024
The FTCA constitutes “a limited waiver of the United States’s sovereign immunity.” White-Squire v. U.S. Postal Serv., 592 F.3d 453, 456 (3d Cir. 2010). … To succeed on a claim under Title I of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) he was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services
Cited 0 timesUnknownFiedler v. Stroudsburg Area School District
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2019
She also emphasizes that the Complaint clearly states that the harm she suffered was a foreseeable and direct consequence of Defendants’ conduct. (See id. at 15-16). … Quite clearly this element is satisfied here as Fiedler was a student in Kovacs’ physical education class.
Cited 0 timesUnknownRhino Associates, L.P. v. Berg Manufacturing & Sales Corp.
482 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2007
The '889 patent clearly discloses, and claims, a plastic molded ramp. … Given this admission and the lack of argument to the contrary, the court finds that the '928 patent does not qualify as prior art.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2026
As a result of the review, the Unit Team determined that Barry did not qualify for prerelease placement under the Second Chance Act due to his pending unresolved charges, his status as an Institution Hearing Program … | The record in this case clearly establishes that Barry’s Unit Team gave him individualized consideration consistent with the five factors of § 3621(b) and did !
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2025
The Superior Court’s conclusion is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. … This conclusion is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2024
The FTCA constitutes “a limited waiver of the United States’s sovereign immunity.” White-Squire v. U.S. Postal Serv., 592 F.3d 453, 456 (3d Cir. 2010). … To succeed on a claim under Title I of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) he was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services
Cited 0 timesUnknownBrayboy v. Department of Corrections
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2024
Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983; state agencies | such as the DOC do not qualify. See Will v. Mich. … Additionally, any claim against a state agency is akin to | suing the state itself, and such claims for damages are barred by Eleventh | Amendment sovereign immunity. See Harper v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2021
Finally, a third alternative form of relief is available to Young via Governor Wolf’s temporary program to reprieve sentences of incarceration for those inmates who meet established criteria. … Whether Young would qualify for such a reprieve is unknown.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna