Case law

DOBSON v. THE MILTON HERSHEY SCHOOL AND SCHOOL TRUST

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2019

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 … Given this backdrop, at the outset, we note that these documents, in our view, do not qualify as “judicial records” subject to the public right of access or the First Amendment.

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.

Durand

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2025

In shorthand, Durand must establish that “[s]he was disabled, was qualified for the job, and suffered discrimination because of [her] disability.” Gibbs v. … Thus, with her allegations, Durand has established that she is a person with a disability within the meaning of the ADA.® As for the “otherwise qualified” element, a “qualified individual” is defined by the ADA

Sawyer v. SUPT.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2023

Dep’t of Corr., 802 F.3d 579, 589 (3d Cir. 2015) (explaining that, if a state court’s resolution of a claim reflects an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, the federal habeas court “review[s] … Sawyer also appears to claim that his sentence was illegal because he did not have any qualifying prior convictions for a crime of violence.

Roche v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.

603 F. Supp. 1411 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1984

I can imagine no construction of those words which would exclude from their coverage the primary victims of such a scheme and which would render such defendants immune from civil sanctions. … The court rejects this argument, for the statute clearly enumerates mail and wire fraud as predicate acts which can form the basis for a finding of a pattern of racketeering activity. 8 .

Coit v. Luther

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2024

Without these statements in the report, particularly the reference to the stomach, it is impossible to clearly identify the items depicted in the photos or where those items were located unless a qualified witness testified … Moreover, Coit’s testimony would be insufficient to establish any exception to the hearsay rule, such as the business records exception. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (“Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity.

Gilkes v. US XPRESS, Inc.

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

However, this argument is clearly belied by the evidence of record which indicates that, subsequent to the implementation of the DashCam system, Plaintiff’s driving resulted in sixty-four (64) safety violations on eighteen … Regardless, even if the Court were to credit Plaintiff’s assertions that the accident was not preventable, it is clearly established that a plaintiff “cannot simply show that an employer’s decision was wrong or mistaken

Richards v. The Pennsylvania State University

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2023

the first three elements of a prima facie case: Richards is female, she was qualified for her position, and she suffered an adverse employment action when she was fired from that position. … a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that she “(1) was a member of a protected class, i.e., that she was over forty, (2) is qualified for the position, (3)  

Advanced Fluid Systems, Inc. v. Huber

381 F. Supp. 3d 362 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2019

Clearly someone at Livingston reviewed pretrial filings during this litigation, all of which are signed by Attorney Morin's co-counsel, yet no objection was raised. … This sentence was not intended, and should not be construed, as immunizing any PUTSA violation accomplished in the interest of competitive advantage.

Tielle v. The Nutrition Group

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2019

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the statute, the plaintiff must show: “(1) [s]he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential … A qualified individual has the burden of identifying an accommodation whose costs do not clearly exceed its benefits. Walton v.

Mastrella v. DeJoy

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

Discussion Mastrella’s amended complaint against the Postal Service does not clearly delineate his theories of liability. … Hence, Mastrella pleads facts establishing he was “qualified” for an automatic pay raise. (See id. ¶¶ 20-23). The Postal Service’s second argument fares better.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division

919 F. Supp. 783 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1996

Likelihood of success on the merits To establish a likelihood of success on the merits, the union must establish: 1) that the dispute is arbitrable; and 2) that its interpretation of the collective bargaining is correct and … A total of 1,336 Textron retirees covered under the current Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan qualify for coverage under First Priority 65.

Keister v. PPL Corp.

318 F.R.D. 247 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2015

Russo’s filings have run afoul of this established body of law. … That factor, however, cannot be wielded by sole practitioners as immunity against Rule 11 sanctions ad infini-tum. Applying the remaining Doering factors, Mr.

United States v. Jackson

617 F. Supp. 2d 316 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2008

In such a situation, it is objectively reasonable for the affiant to rely upon an unsigned warrant because “the judge has clearly communicated a finding of probable cause.” Id. … The water leak clearly provided Morgan with a legitimate business purpose for entering Apartment CM2.

Dunmore School District v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2020

or Territory or the District of Columbia, 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 … Further, the materiality of the error is not discussed or established. Dr.

Crowelle v. Cumberland-Dauphin-Harrisburg Transit Authority

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2024

Because this is clearly a factual question, summary judgment is in fact rarely appropriate in this type of case. … To survive summary judgment on a disability discrimination claim, a plaintif must present a prima facie case and establish that she was: 1) disabled; 2) subject to adverse employment action; 3) qualified for her position

Ismail v. Honeywell International Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2022

To ultimately establish a claim of religious discrimination under Title VII, Ismail must sufficiently allege that he (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position he south to attain or retain … Jendoco Construction Corp., 570 F.2d 1168, 1174 (3d Cir. 1978)(motion to dismiss); 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1368 (2d ed. 1990)(“If the affirmative defense clearly is established in the pleadings

Ciotola v. Star Transportation & Trucking LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2020

Plaintiff asserts that Appendix E establishes that Quarterback held itself out as a carrier, certified that it would provide “qualified personnel” and that it would “employ [] only fully qualified, competent, and legally … Plaintiff’s argument repeatedly hinges upon language in the FMCSR that clearly states the regulations apply to motor carriers.

St. Mary's Area Water Authority v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

472 F. Supp. 2d 630 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2007

In its motion for reconsideration, Defendant argues we clearly erred in concluding that mechanical breakdown could not occur in the absence of a defect or corrosion. … As noted, we did decide that Defendant would have to show coverage for only one risk to establish that mechanical breakdown coverage was not illusory. Defendant has provided us with two of them.

Quevi v. Kauffman

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

Finally, a third alternative form of relief is available to Quevi via Governor Wolf’s temporary program to reprieve sentences of incarceration for those inmates who meet established criteria. … Whether Quevi would qualify for such a reprieve is unknown.