Case law

Hoffman v. Charnita, Inc.

58 F.R.D. 86 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 1973

Gerlach v. Allstate Ins. Co., 338 F.Supp. 642 (S.D.Fla.1972); Buford v. American Finance Co., 333 F. Supp. 1243 (N.D.Ga.1971); Ratner v. … In Rogers v.

Johnson v. Lutton

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

Brown v. Hahnemann Univ. Hosp., 20 F. Supp. 3d 538, 542 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (quoting Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140, 1145 (2003)). … Brown, 20 F. Supp. 3d at 542 (citing Hightower–Warren v. Silk, A.2d 52, 54 (Pa. 1997)).

Clarke v. Wakefield

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2022

Similarly, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is clearly not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. Thompson v. Burke, 556 F.2d 231, 232 (3d Cir. 1977). … Hence, Clarke's claims for money damages against the Defendants in their official capacities, and his claims against the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, are barred by sovereign immunity. See Betts v.

Doe v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2022

City of Montgomery, 742 F.2d 586, 589 (11th Cir. 1984) (city board was proper Title VII defendant); Boyden v. Conlin, No. 17-CV-264-WMC, 2018 WL 2191733, at *8 (W.D. Wis. … Counts III and V allege the PEBTF and its board discriminated against him on the basis of sex and disability, respectively. (See Doc. 60 at 37, 40).

Carbaugh v. Reese

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2025

v. … Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011); V.0. Pa. Local Rule 72.3.

Katz Underwear Co. v. United States

39 F. Supp. 976 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1941

The Act under which the tax was collected was invalidated by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 , 56 S.Ct. 312 , 80 L.Ed. 477 , 102 A.L.R. 914 . … or collected from any claimant as tax under the Agricultural Adjustment Act [this chapter], unless the claimant establishes to the satisfaction of the Commissioner * * * or to the satisfaction of the trial court, or the Board

Shingara

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2026

Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). … Rahman v. Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363, 2024 WL 555894, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).

Ganoe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2026

As the Supreme Court has explained, this escape-hatch provision exists “to save employees from being held in perpetual uncertainty by Board inaction.” See Kloeckner v. … See Clark v. Brown, 536 F. Supp. 3d 56, 65 (E.D. Va. 2021). In that context, courts will sometimes stay the case or hold it in abeyance until there is a final decision. See Ikossi v.

Grosek v. Panther Transportation, Inc.

251 F.R.D. 162 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2008

See, e.g., Ranney Brown Distributors, Inc. v. E.T. … Bogosian v.

Sprague v. Cortés

223 F. Supp. 3d 248 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2016

issued to voters by the Board of Elections, were invalid under state law.” … Each county elections board also posted the Statement in polling places. 25 P.S. § 2621.1.” (Doc. 32, at 3). The Ninth Circuit adopted the standard set forth in the Burton v.

Chaudhari

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2026

This policy has since been applied by the United States Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), the appellate body that hears appeals from decisions by Immigration Judges. See In re Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. … Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798, 809 (2015) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000)).

American Future Systems, Inc. v. Pennsylvania State University

522 F. Supp. 544 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1981

See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Com *553 mission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 , 100 S.Ct. 2343 , 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980); Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. … Madera v. Board of Education, 386 F.2d 778, 783-84 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1028 , 88 S.Ct. 1416 , 20 L.Ed.2d 284 (1968), citing Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 , 17 S.Ct. 427 , 41 L.Ed. 832 (1897).

Intersimone v. Carlson

512 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1980

Arkansas Board of Correction, 505 F.2d 194 (8th Cir. 1974), the court held that a restricted mailing list, which is applied to all prisoners, was unjustified. … McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 575-76 , 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2984 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Finney v. Arkansas Board of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194, 211 (8th Cir. 1974); Guajardo v.

Singer v. Thompson

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2022

When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. '636(b)(1); Brown v. … Brown v. Cwynar, 484 F. App’x 676, 680 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming district court grant of qualified immunity to police officer who tased 73-year-old man who refused to give officer his car keys); Grab v.

United States v. Bortlik

119 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1954

in conducting the hearing and making his report on the conscientious objections of Stephen Frank Bortlik, the defendant, which report was also used by the Department of Justice in making the recommendation to the Appeal Board … The defendant strongly relies on the recent decision of Judge Hincks in the case of United States v. Evans, D. C., 115 F.Supp. 340, 341 .

Giddings v. Sines

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2024

See Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257, 265 (3d Cir. 2018); see also Ross v. … v.

Richardson v. Exxon Corp.

491 F. Supp. 201 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1980

According to a state statute, the New Jersey cemetery board and Attorney General were joined as “indispensable parties.” *204 In most instances, this fact would have destroyed diversity since the Attorney General was but … See Irving Trust Company v. Century Export & Import, 464 F.Supp. 1232 , 1242 n. 14 (S.D.N. Y.1979); Dailey v. Elicker, 447 F.Supp. 436, 438 (D.Col.1978); Newman v.

James v. York County Police Dept.

167 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2001

Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496, 501 , 102 S.Ct. 2557 , 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982). … Nelson v. Jashurek, 109 F.3d 142 (3d Cir.1997) (quoting Simpson v. City of Pickens, 887 F.Supp. 126 (S.D.Miss.1995)).

Motton v. Owens

128 F.R.D. 72 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 1989

Cf: Lugo v. Heckler, 98 F.R.D. 709, 715 (E.D.Pa.1983). Plaintiff’s Rule 34 request is not saved by the statement he makes in the “Complaint” attached to his instant motion, viz.: 6. … Cf: Robbins v. Camden City Board of Education, 105 F.R.D. 49, 60 (D.N.J.1985).

Westmont Industries, Inc. v. Weinstein

762 F. Supp. 646 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1989

Browne v. Maxfield, 663 F.Supp. 1193 (E.D.Pa.1987). We have reviewed the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and feel that they are sufficient to give the defendant notice of the nature of the plaintiff's claim. … Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 , 105 S.Ct. 3275 , 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985); Saporito v.