Case law

Giangrieco v. Susquehanna County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2020

First, Plaintiff has not established that he indeed made any “good faith report” of wrongdoing. … Plaintiff appears to concede that Defendant Susquehanna County is indeed entitled to immunity here.

KL v. Dunmore School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2025

This policy was clearly not enforced with respect to the cellphone used by JM to photograph KL in the restroom. … Section 504 of the RA provides that “[nlo otherwise qualified individual with a disability ...

Rich v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2025

To establish a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the United States Constitution. … tight, 2 Although Rich did not provide an address for Parcel, and Parcel is not presently listed on the docket because he was not listed in the “Defendants” section of the complaint form, Rich clearly

Team Biondi, LLC v. Navistar, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2023

statement admitted to the extent they are not clearly disputed by the record citations in Team Biondi’s opposition brief. … And without such evidence, it is virtually impossible to establish the justifiable-reliance element needed for a fraud claim.

Doe v. The Pennsylvania State University

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2023

inadequate, Steffen’s attempt to remedy the situation was not clearly unreasonable. … Therefore, Doe has established a prima facie case of retaliation as to the transfer.

Kress v. Zoning Hearing Board of Sugarloaf Township

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2025

A claim is deemed meritorious when “the allegations of the pleadings, if established at trial, would support recovery by plaintiff.” Poulis, 747 F.2d at 870. … Official actions through “policy-making individuals can qualify as acts of official government policy.” DeLuca v. City of Hazleton, 396 F. Supp. 3d 392, 412 (M.D. Pa. 2019).

United States v. Asper

753 F. Supp. 1260 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1990

There is no legal market for endangered species save the highly limited market relating to acquisition by those institutions which qualify for exemption under 16 U.S.C. § 1539 ; 50 C.F.R. §§ 17 and 23. 89. … We are of the view that a two-level upwards adjustment because the offense involved a commercial purpose is clearly warranted.

Pennsylvania Protect Our Water & Environmental Resources, Inc. v. Appalachian Regional Commission

574 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1982

Maughan’s testimony established three areas of alleged deficiency in the FEIS concerning aquatic biota. … However, we believe that this work would qualify for authorization by the Nationwide Permit.

Hunter v. Kennedy

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2020

Smith was one of Plaintiff’s treating physicians and Defendants have cited no authority to establish that it is objectionable that Dr. … LaPorta, as a podiatrist, is not qualified to render opinions as to emergency care. (Doc. 144, pp. 20–21.)

Novinger Group, Inc. v. Hartford Ins., Inc.

514 F. Supp. 2d 662 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 16, 2007

The court finds that this is clearly a business purpose and that plaintiffs have failed to allege otherwise in their complaint. (See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 130-146.) … In the instant motion to dismiss, Hartford has not addressed the issue of whether the VUL and Buy-Sell Policies qualify as securities for purposes of Rule 10b-5.

Bashir v. Smith

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2023

The clearly established federal law as to an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is Strickland, which sets forth the following two-prong analysis. … Dilts, a qualified psychiatrist, testified before the [c]ourt and jury regarding [Victim]’s possible loss of perception and memory.

Curtis L. Gibson v. Capt. Crouch, Jr.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2020

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, although he does not specify the individuals responsible, he clearly identifies the lack of drinking water and includes detailed and relevant facts as to the dates, location and time of the complained of conduct

Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co. v. Newspaper Guild of Wilkes-Barre, Local 120

504 F. Supp. 54 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 1980

While clearly this does not prevent Sever, as an individual member of a signatory union from claiming under § 301, Smith v. … The present case clearly satisfies this test.

Woods

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

are deliberately indifferent to [ ] harassment, of which they have actual knowledge.’”75 “School administrators act with deliberate indifference ‘only where the [school’s] response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly … This language implies that IIED claims are As to the other elements, Plaintiffs’ pleadings plausibly establish an IIED claim.

Robins v. Wetzel

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

Clearly, Robins has failed to allege any facts to establish a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. C. … However, he fails to establish any constitutionally protected interest in a parole interview.

Castro a/k/a Worthington v. United States of America

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2023

Canaan Staff clearly and obviously caused it to vanish instead of mailing it to the Region in order to shield themselves from being sued.” (Id., pp. 1–2, 15–16.) … Therefore, Defendants have met their burden of establishing that the DFE applies.

Liberty Curtin Concerned Parents v. Keystone Central School District

81 F.R.D. 590 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1978

Clearly, such was not the case. Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ brief in support of abstention will be denied. … The Act clearly states that if a school district crosses county lines, the district shall be composed of contiguous election districts.

Tolerico v. Home Depot

205 F.R.D. 169 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2002

Home Depot was clearly unaware of the existence of the April 1, 1998 Charge Questionnaire and the other documents pertinent to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. … Burns asserts that the April 1, 1998 Charge Questionnaire qualifies as a charge of employment discrimination, an assertion with which Home Depot does not take issue. Burns further asserts that Atty.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Boockvar

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

At this stage of the litigation, defendants have not shown that INS Indicators categorically do not qualify as identifying information. Citizenship information is not the only information implicated here. … The Commonwealth has not waived sovereign immunity. See PA. CONST. art. I, § 11; 42 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 102, 8521, 8522. IV.

Jones v. Commonwealth of PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 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.