Case law

Gonzalez v. Doe 1

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2020

To establish a claim under section 1983, two criteria must be met. First, the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under of color of state law. … The Court seems to imply, without specifically addressing, that such an action is proper but then proceeds to a qualified immunity analysis. Id.

Wolff v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2022

, the Court rejected Aetna’s assertion that variations in plan language meant that certain individuals would not qualify for the class. … Clearly then, despite an erroneous placement of the bullet points in that portion of the definition of “Other Income Benefits,” the above language is linked only to workers’ compensation type laws and does not apply

Johnson v. Preston

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2023

from such relief.”17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic … 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 secured by the Constitution and laws

Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

106 F. Supp. 3d 506 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2015

At trial, Arlington established that it was entitled to lost profits damages for sales of the Single Connectors. … Whether a matter sought to be precluded was actually litigated "depends on the second court’s concluding that the issue in dispute was clearly resolved by the first tribunal.” United Access Techs., LLC v.

Breiner v. Litwhiler

245 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2003

It also established rules governing fire protection procedures and fire company administration. … Furthermore, there were clearly good grounds for the disciplinary action.

Geronimo v. Pottsville Ford

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2021

July 12, 2016) (“Regarding plaintiffs asthma, her condition limits her ability to breathe, a recognized major life activity.”); see also Doc. 11 at 8 (noting that “asthma clearly affects one’s ability to breath[e], sometimes … Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, which requires a showing that: “1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he was qualified for the position

Option One Mortgage Corp. v. Fitzgerald

687 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2009

The check for the insurance proceeds qualifies as an “instrument.” 13 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 3104. … The official comments for this section also clearly explain how the conversion section works in situations like the one at bar.

DOE v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2021

The Court’s discretion in resolving discovery disputes is limited by the factors established by Rule 26: privilege, relevance, and proportionality. … Claims of harassments against LGBTQ+ employees would clearly be relevant to this litigation, as those individuals would be similarly situated to Plaintiff. Defendants could not argue otherwise.

Orloski v. Davis

564 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1983

Presuming, therefore, that adequate standing has been established, the court will address the equal protection and due process challenges. … Controlling a candidate’s access to the ballot is clearly within the legislature’s authority and wisdom. See Storer, 415 U.S. at 732 , 94 S.Ct. at 1280 .

Blanchard II v. Amin

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

Ann., tit. 71, § 61, it shares in the Commonwealth's Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Lavia v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 224 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2000). Pennsylvania has not waived this immunity. 42 Pa. Cons. … Assuming that Blanchard’s allegations qualify as a serious medical condition for purposes of the Eighth Amendment analysis, the Court must determine whether he has established a deliberate indifference to that need.

Rutherford

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2026

“To state a claim under either the ADA or the RA, [a plaintiff] must allege that he is a qualified individual with a disability, who was precluded from participating in a program, service, or activity, or otherwise was … Miller has not alleged that any contract exists between the DOC and UPMC Harrisburg to establish that Defendant Hartraft is acting under the color of state law.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Standard Register Co.

805 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2011

The parties do not agree when anyone posed such a question to Zink; however, the evidence of record clearly reflects that it oc *82 curred prior to March 7, 2007. … The record does not clearly establish when Zink began to express her dissatisfaction with the arrangement. The EEOC avers that Zink made a "number of complaints ... which went unanswered!)]”

Brugler v. UNUM Group

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2019

These conclusions are clearly relevant to whether Defendants had a reasonable basis to deny Dr. Brugler’s claim. The conclusions of Dr. Marks and Dr. Vander that Dr. … As the Court ruled on September 17, 2019 and September 26, 2019, these experts were not qualified to give these specific opinions.

Hymer v. Kross

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

§1915(e)(2)(B) and §1915A(b) if “the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” … “Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps.

Torrance v. Salzinger

195 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1961

In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors … To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible

Andritz Sprout-Bauer, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc.

12 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1998

The only private parties who would clearly qualify for that status would be those who can legitimately claim one of the complete defenses to liability set forth in section 107(b) or someone with no legal responsibility for … The legislature clearly intended to treat storage tank releases in a different manner than the harms caused by these other acts.

Remlinger v. Lebanon County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2022

Hocker argues there is no factual basis to support Remlinger’s claims against him for intentional infliction of emotional distress,4 and Hocker, Fink, and Van Dusen argue they are protected by qualified immunity. … It argues that Remlinger cannot establish Monell liability for her April 2017 isolation because she has provided no evidence to establish that her isolation was anything beyond an isolated incident.

Sturdivant v. Rivera-Ithier

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2021

The complaint is deficient for several reasons: the complaint is not signed by Sawchak; it violates the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not clearly set forth any claims on the part … To establish a claim under §1983, the plaintiff must establish a deprivation of a federally protected right and that this deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Woloszyn v.

Stilp v. Contino

743 F. Supp. 2d 460 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2010

Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that “injury to official reputation is an insufficient reason ‘for repressing speech that would otherwise be free.’ ” Landmark Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. at 841-42 , 98 S.Ct. 1535 … The parties stipulated to the dismissal of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. (See Doc. 23). 9 .

United States v. Solar Turbines, Inc.

732 F. Supp. 535 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1989

These requirements, spelled out in paragraphs (j) through (r), include: (1) a duty to meet SIP emission limitations as well as federally established standards *537 under 40 C.F.R. … This is clearly not the case, however.