Case law

Adlife Marketing & Communications Compay, INC v. Karns Prime and Fancy Food LTD

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2021

Finally, Defendant asserts that its defenses to this action are meritorious as more clearly defined in its motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 15.) … “To establish a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must establish: (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) unauthorized copying of original elements of the plaintiff’s work.”

Friend v. Shoemaker

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2020

Section 1983 provides that persons acting under color of state law may be held liable if they deprive an individual of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. … As to the denial of witnesses, Friend has not clearly identified the witnesses who would have testified or alleged that the testimony was denied in contravention of the prison officials’ discretion or violated the institution

Bashore v. Pocono Mountain Regional Police Commission

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2021

The Commission required Plaintiff to successfully qualify within thirty (30) days after having received remedial firearms training from an outside source. … Nevertheless, a “trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Tartaglione, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 406.

Mutschler v. Corby

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2020

does depict Defendant Corby and another corrections officer walking Plaintiff to the shower and then something occurring between all three; however the actions described—the spinning, loss of balance, and shove—cannot clearly … In this case, the Court established an extended deadline of September 23, 2019, for the filing of dispositive motions.

Stone v. Superintendent, SCI Frackville

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2021

Section 2254(d) “preserves authority to issue the writ in cases where there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts with” clearly established Supreme Court precedent. … The two-pronged test established in Strickland “qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law’ ” for purposes of the AEDPA. See Rainey v. Varner, 603 F.3d 189, 197 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Williams v.

Sikkelee ex rel. Estate Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp.

45 F. Supp. 3d 431 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2014

Accordingly, only persons designated qualified by the FARs are permitted to “maintain, rebuild, alter, or perform preventative maintenance on an ... aircraft engine,” a designation which includes agents of “[t]he holder of … So long as its intent is clearly expressed, Congress’s decision to leave an area unregulated by both the federal and state governments preempts the field as effectively as its decision to have federal law regulate so comprehensively

Nationalist Movement v. City of York

425 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2006

Otherwise, an applicant will receive a written notice of denial clearly specifying the grounds upon which the permit was denied. (York Ordinance § ,(e)4-5; § 741.03(e)(4)-(5).) … Chicago Park Dist., 2001 WL 34091941 (February 1, 2001). 4 Contrary to Defendant’s reliance, the Thomas court did not ratify each and every provision of the Chicago Ordinance, thus rendering any ordinance that mirrors it immune

UGI Sunbury LLC v. A Permanent Easement

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2021

Second, Pontius has established that Rothman’s opinion testimony and report are sufficiently reliable to justify admission under Rule 702. … CONCLUSION Both parties successfully established that their appraisal experts are qualified to opine on the pre- and post-taking value of the Pontius property

Salter v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2020

Wetzel, it clearly states you will no longer receive the original copies of your legal mail, we will make copies of your legal mail and give it to you, the original copies of your legal mail will be placed in an evidence … Id. at 63-71 However, the state’s immunity is not shared by state officers to the extent that the suit seeks prospective injunctive or declaratory relief or seeks damages from the officers in their individual capacities

Benjamin v. Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth

267 F.R.D. 456 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2010

Further, the Third Circuit instructs that the determination of whether a “significantly protectable” legal interest exists involves a pragmatic analysis and that there is no set list of interests that qualify as sufficient … The class definition, which this Court certified by order on September 2, 2009, clearly excludes those disabled individuals currently residing in ICFs/MR who oppose discharge from the institutional setting.

Reed v. Williams

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2020

Clearly Reed would have preferred not to wait three months for his surgery once Dr. … Clearly, to the extent sought to raise a condition of confinement claim with respect to his post-second MRI care, Reed was able to do so in both state court and this Court.

Northern Keystone Towing and Recovery, LLC v. Mahanoy City Borough, et al.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2026

However, on an October 6, 2023, call, Mahanoy City Council Vice President Thomas McCabe (“McCabe”) informed Tyler Hope of Northern Keystone (“Hope”) that Rentschler and Fatula believed Northern Keystone was not qualified … As an initial matter, the Court notes that Northern Keystone does not clearly name Steve’s Towing, the business entity, as a defendant in this case. (Doc. 1, ¶ 5).

United States v. Loftus

796 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1992

In 1950, Morgan was convicted by a New York state court on a state charge and sentenced to a longer term because the 1939 federal conviction qualified him as a second offender. … Clearly, the completion of sentence does not render a coram nobis petition moot, for that is the only time that such a petition can be brought.

Villegas v. Weinstein & Riley, P.S.

723 F. Supp. 2d 755 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2010

A defendant bears the burden of establishing that a plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim. See Gould Elecs. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir.2000). III. … As clearly demonstrated by the parties’ arguments, there is a split of authority on the issue of whether communications with a debtor’s attorney are actionable under the FDCPA.

CONSOL. FREIGHTWAYS CORP. OF DELAWARE v. Larson

647 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 1986

In other words, Congress clearly intended that a state or local government might deny access to and from the national network over a route that cannot safely be used by STAA vehicles. … News 4769, the Committee expressly acknowledged its awareness that the Secretary of Transportation “has allowed the State[s] to establish individual provisions for access to the national network, rather than establish a Federal

Orndorff v. Colvin

215 F. Supp. 3d 391 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2016

Fischetto’s non-treating medical opinion because “the ALJ finding herself more qualified' to interpret Orn-dorffs symptoms and subjective complaints than a licensed psychologist and is clearly an error of law.” (PI. … However, the Ramirez Court specifically suggested that the case in which more may be required is one in which the Santiago-Rivera had clearly established in the record additional, specific deficiencies in concentration, persistence

Rosario

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

such a motion, “the court must ‘view the facts presented in the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party’ and may not grant the motion ‘unless the movant clearly … establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of jaw.”

Ogden v. Keystone Residence

226 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2002

In this case, though, because each claim is so clearly baseless, we will exercise jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them on the merits. … First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id.

Miller v. Campana

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 2024

The parties do not dispute that Levan was qualified to be assistant chief. (Doc. 24, ¶ 16); (Doc. 25, ¶ 16). … “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

Bell v. Ardery

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2025

Spruill, 372 F.3d at 234 (reasoning that while the “point is close ..., the grievances and the suit are about a larger-scale denial of adequate medical care, in which prison officials clearly knew [the defendant] was alleged … Section 1983 provides that persons acting under color of state law may be held liable if they deprive an individual of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United