Case law

Stephens v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2022

To establish an ADA claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) “he is a qualified individual with a disability,” (2) “who was precluded from participating in a program, service, or activity, or other wise subject … Any claims concerning the ten earlier parole decisions are clearly time-barred, any information or documents concerning those prior decisions are largely immaterial to the plaintiff’s actionable ADA claims

Anderson v. Deluxe Homes of PA, Inc.

131 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2001

This complaint clearly had “sexual overtones.” … First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation. Id.

Bell v. Haines

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2022

“To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. … Additionally, de minimis use of physical force does not qualify as excessive force unless the force is “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Brooks v.

Washington v. Brown

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2024

This is an intervening fact that prevents the Plaintiff from establishing causation. … have declined to follow Hainze unless clearly ‘exigent circumstances’ were present at the time of the arrest.” Young v. Sunbury Police Dep't, 160 F.Supp.3d 802, 809 n.33 (M.D.

Doe v. Riverside School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2024

The District argues that the plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to establish that Jane Doe was deprived of educational benefits and opportunities. … Such an allegation is sufficient to establish that Jane Doe was subjected to discriminatory peer harassment. , 389 F.

United States v. Alaimo

191 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1961

Such testimony was clearly admissible, see VIII Wigmore, op. cit. supra, § 2363, p. 727; United States v. Johnson, D.C.M.D.Pa.1947, 76 F.Supp. 542, 548 , affirmed 3 Cir, 165 F.2d 42, 45-46 ; Metzler v. … Defendant -was unanimously elected and duly qualified as one of three to represent his , fellow employees for a period of two years.

Watson v. Marsh

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2022

Rather, “[t]he state court’s application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable” before a federal court may grant the writ. Andrade, 538 U.S. at 75. … 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.

Williamson

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2026

The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part on August 11, 2025, dismissing the negligence claim because defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity, but denying the motion to the extent that … Williamson has clearly failed to meet that burden because he has not responded to defendants’ motion for summary judgment in any manner.

Giles v. Volvo Trucks North America

551 F. Supp. 2d 359 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2008

Here, Plaintiff clearly believes that Defendants were wrong to withhold money from his wages; however, the amounts withheld are in no way related to illegal gambling activity or usurious lending. See id. … Section 1961(1) contains a laundry-list of activities that qualify as predicate acts, including mail fraud ( 18 U.S.C. § 1341 6 ), the criminal provision upon which Plaintiff bases his case. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1); see Johnson

Steppe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2026

Instead, Davis stated that plaintiff's involvement in concessions at LLWS did not qualify as a fast-food experience. (Id. {] 44). … According to defendants, “[i]f such mannerisms and characteristics were clearly | distinct and commonly attributed to Plaintiff's alleged disability, she should have, and was | required, to plead such allegations in her

Henry v. York County

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

With respect to the York County Defendants, Henry fails to establish a viable claim. … In the instant action, the filing of a grievance qualifies as constitutionally protected activity. See Watson, 834 F.3d at 422-23.

Thomas v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2024

, failed to state a claim in either negligence or assumpsit upon which relief could be granted, and that the defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity. … He further asserts that Defendant Salamon, as Superintendent, has a “duty to be aware of all clearly established rights of the prisoners under her supervision.” (Doc. 90, p. 12).

Romaine Cleckner v. 3M Company

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

In addition, any man-made vaccine that contains adjuvants that alter our immune response is interfering with how God made us. He made us perfect in His image. … Del. 2024) (“Allowing Plaintiff the ability to object to anything that ‘goes against God's will’ or her ‘conscience’ would amount to the type of ‘blanket privilege’ that does not qualify as religious belief under Africa

Jones v. Garman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2024

Therefore, Plaintiff clearly challenges the conditions of his confinement in the dry cell. … Here, the record submitted by Defendants clearly establishes that grievances were not filed prior to his prolonged stay in the dry cell or prior to the misconducts. (Doc. 49-7.)

Washington Petroleum & Supply Co. v. Girard Bank

629 F. Supp. 1224 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 1983

Chemical Bank, 74 F.R.D. 128, 134 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (dismissal of non-moving co-defendant banks on basis that “collateral estoppel defense is clearly applicable to all of the commercial banks____”); Walner v. … Under the relevant provisions of the UCC, a Federal Reserve bank, which apparently would qualify as a "collecting bank” pursuant to 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 4105, may be held liable to the "owner of the item”, 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 4201(a

Pratt v. Ott

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2021

provision to extinguish all relief under the private right of action established elsewhere in the statute, it could have more simply stated so. … Plaintiffs clearly allege in the amended complaint that, inter alia, the hairstyle policy at LCCF was applied differently on the basis of race.

Everitt

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2026

FMLA Retaliation Claim To establish a retaliation claim under the FMLA, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) she invoked her right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) she suffered an … The plaintiff’s allegations clearly satisfy the first two elements.

Carrasquilla v. Mazda Motor Corp.

166 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2001

See also Hurley, 222 F.3d at 382-83 (finding plaintiffs products liability claim against bus manufacturer preempted by FMVSS 208; claim did not qualify for loophole provision regarding “special design related circumstance … either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment!

Watters v. Board of School Directors of the City of Scranton

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

It is well-established that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is to be broadly construed. In Dennis v. … This well-established presumption is grounded in the elementary proposition that the principal function of a legislature is not to make contracts, but to make laws that establish the policy of the state.

Witbeck v. Equipment Transport, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2022

To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Witbeck must prove, inter alia, he was a qualified individual capable of performing the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable accommodation. … Witbeck may submit evidence related to his personal assessment of his job performance for the purpose of establishing he meets the definition of a qualified individual but not for the purpose of establishing Equipment