Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,574 results
0.99s
Schengrund v. Pennsylvania State University
705 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2009
These accrual dates are clearly outside the statute of limitations period and Plaintiff Mulder makes no arguments in support of equitable tolling on these claims. Accordingly, they are untimely. … Accordingly, the Court has no need to determine whether such statement would actually qualify for equitable tolling.
Cited 13 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2020
enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”31 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), judgment on the pleadings is only appropriate in favor of the moving party when that party “clearly … obligation to dismiss a complaint “at any time the court determines” that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
Cited 0 timesUnknownAndritz Sprout-Bauer, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc.
174 F.R.D. 609 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 1997
Most notably absent are: 1) a statute of limitations for bringing such an action — in contrast, CERCLA establishes a limitations period for private actions — 42 U.S.C. § 9607 ; or 2) a requirement that the plaintiff establish … Individuals so injured, are, therefore, clearly within the class the Commonwealth sought to protect with the passage of the VaWCL.
Cited 59 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2021
Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) (“Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, . . . including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.”). … To maintain such a claim, a plaintiff must establish that he has been irrationally singled out for disparate treatment. See id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2020
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.
Cited 0 timesUnknown496 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2007
The facts are clearly different here. … Defendant offered various reasons why such an order was inappropriate, including an argument that “[n]u-merous federal precedents establish clearly that anonymity may not be utilized to avoid disclosure of the identity of
Vacated in part, on other grounds by Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170 (2010)Cited 54 timesPublishedOLDHAM v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2022
Although all but one claim qualify as timely, the lack of an established relationship with Penn State and absence of certain material allegations necessitate dismissal. I. … Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 648 (1999) (holding that funding recipients are deliberately indifferent “only where the recipient’s response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2022
Norville’s opinions, the ALJ here clearly articulated his consideration of factors (1) and (2), -ll- expressly describing Dr. … Because state agency medical and psychological consultants are “highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation,” the ALJ must consider their findings
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2021
To establish “a claim under Title II of the ADA, a person ‘must demonstrate: (1) he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) [who] was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, … And Sonsini does not clearly allege that he had a disability or what the disability was. He also does not allege from what services, programs, or activities for which he was qualified he was excluded.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2023
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 … Although Plaintiff was clearly dissatisfied with his level of care, he has failed to allege facts showing that his course of treatment was constitutionally insufficient.
Cited 0 timesUnknown543 F. Supp. 179 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 1982
In a society of widespread and almost instant 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 will not have … A review of the testimony introduced by the Commonwealth and the defense clearly discloses that the applicant repeatedly ignored requests to surrender or to throw down his gun and simple general conversation to ask how many
Cited 9 timesPublished"R.D" v. Shohola Camp Ground and Resort
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2019
While these principles favoring inclusion of evidence are subject to some reasonable limitations, even those limitations are also cast in terms that clearly favor admission of relevant evidence over preclusion of proof … Pitman are fully qualified to proffer expert psychiatric opinions.
Cited 0 timesUnknown372 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 1974
Having been granted immunity by the Government, Miss Butchko testified that Pancerella used the name John Turo, and that on the days on which the phone calls were being intercepted and recorded, Pancerella was using the telephone … authentication, the Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(6), unchanged by the bill H.R. 5463 presently before the House, requires that the business record be authenticated “by testimony of the custodian or other qualified
Cited 17 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2023
the initiation and continuation of the arrests of [Plaintiffs], [the Officer Defendants] each had information clearly demonstrating there was no reasonable basis to suspect [Plaintiffs] had participated in retail theft … State 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
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2024
§ 1343(a)(3), which confers jurisdiction of any action commenced to redress the deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by federal law providing for the equal rights of citizens. … To qualify as a “sexual assault dispute” or “sexual harassment dispute” under the EFAA, a plaintiff's claim must be sufficiently pled to survive a motion tc dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Mitura v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2021
Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) (“Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, . . . including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.”). … To maintain such a claim, a plaintiff must establish that he has been irrationally singled out for disparate treatment. See id.
Cited 0 timesUnknown804 F. Supp. 669 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1992
Joseph Horne Co., 403 Pa.Super. 12 , 587 A.2d 810 , 813 n. 2, appeal denied, 528 Pa. 637 , 598 A.2d 994 (1991) (Business invitees are owed the highest degree of care). *679 The facts clearly establish that the duty owed Millard … Both are well-qualified to testify on the subject of vertebral/spinal injuries. Both sides agree that the March 23, 1988 MRI ordered by Dr.
Cited 3 timesPublishedAbraham Sigurd Lee v. SCI Camp Hill, et al.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2026
by a person acting under color of state law.”29 Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as state agencies, prisons, medical departments, or private medical companies generally do not qualify … generally barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.32 Accordingly, any Section 1983 claim against SCI Camp Hill will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2023
Plaintiff own exhibits establish that at all times, Plaintiff was thoroughly examined and immediately recommended for testing or medication based on his symptoms. … None of the moving Defendants qualify as a public - 17 - entity, nor do the facts of Plaintiff’s complaint indicate, in any way, that he is a qualified individual
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2024
plausibly alleged a connection between Brown’s purported conduct and his harm.17 The Court also dismissed the negligence claims against Wetzel and Ransom because those claims were barred by state statutory sovereign immunity … as required, the impossibility of social distancing, infected staff entering the prison and commingling with inmates, and lack of sanitizing supplies.41 Ransom does not argue that these alleged conditions would not qualify
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna