Case law

Bentler v. Nederostek

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 17, 2023

Count Two: Malicious Prosecution To prove a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal … “Several district courts within the Third Circuit . . . have declined to follow Hainze unless clearly ‘exigent circumstances’ were present at the time of the arrest.” Young v.

Westfield Insurance Company v. Arnold

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

“[A] meritorious defense is presumptively established when the ‘allegations of defendant’s answer, if established on trial would constitute a complete defense to the action.’” Id. (citing Tozer v. Charles A. … Defendant’s choice to disregard the proceedings before this Court, when the record clearly establishes his awareness of their pendency, is sufficient to support a finding that Defendant’s willful and culpable conduct led

Masciantonio v. SWEPI LP

195 F. Supp. 3d 667 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2016

The court declines SWEPI’s final entreaty to immunize it from proven contractual liability. IY. Conclusion Established principles of contract interpretation resolve this dispute. … Plaintiffs agree with this established principle.

PALMER, JR. v. BLACK & DECKER (U.S.), INC.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2022

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. … It is then up to the party who calls the expert to introduce other evidence establishing the facts assumed by the expert.” Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 90, 57 (2012) (plurality).

Bird v. Borough of Moosic

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2022

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. … In response, the defendants contend that F.R.E. 404(b) applies to admit “other acts” in the employment discrimination context for the proper purpose of establishing or negating discriminatory intent.

Sawicki v. Kipphan

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

To prevail on a non-legislative substantive due process claim, a plaintiff must first establish a protected property interest to which the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies. Id. at 139–40. … under the Constitution or basic values underlying society, as is required to qualify as a property interest.

Kennedy v. Primecare Medical, Inc.

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

Jensing and Medical Assistant Laura Foust that he had a broken foot and “can’t be housed on the top bunk,” removing his sock to show that his foot was “clearly noticeably broken.” … 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.

White v. United States

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2025

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) “The FTCA offers a limited waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity from civil liability for negligent acts of government employees acting … Ct. 1985) (“The law clearly states . . . that [a defendant] may be held liable only for those risks a person in his position could reasonably have foreseen.”); R.W. v. Manzek, 838 A.2d 801, 808 (Pa. Super.

Greco v. United States

380 F. Supp. 2d 598 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2005

Clearly defined rules of conduct are necessary for the orderly operation of every company. Employees have a right to know what is expected of them. … Belletiere to determine which workers qualified as independent contractors under the IRS guidelines. (Pi’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 9.) The record shows that Mr. Greco met with Mr. Lohin, Ms. McHale, and Mr.

Chi v. United States

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

. § 1915 and did not qualify for in forma pauperis status. (Id.) The motion also raised the issue of improper venue. (Id.) On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a responsive brief to the supplemental brief. … However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and this court have clearly held that an amended pleading replaces the original pleading. See Snyder v.

Talbert v. Harry

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2021

For AEDPA purposes, the Strickland test qualifies as “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495. … Because the Superior Court did not apply law contrary to clearly established precedent, Talbert is entitled to relief only if he can demonstrate that its adjudication involved an unreasonable application of Strickland,

Maze v. Oliver

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2024

Demonstrating actual innocence requires a stronger showing than that needed to establish prejudice. See id. In Goldblum v. … The Court finds that the Superior Court’s conclusion is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

White v. Lycoming County Prison

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2023

He states that Correctional Officers can clearly see inside each cell from the subcontrols and would know if an inmate was inside their cell and sleeping. (Id.) … Therefore, he cannot establish a claim against Lycoming County based on the lack of a policy on CPAP machines at LCP under Monell. Therefore, this claim will be dismissed.

Denius v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc.

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

Traditional harms, like physical or monetary harms, “readily” qualify as concrete under Article III. TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 414. … Cmwlth. 1986) (“Clearly, Pennsylvania’s recording laws do not render invalid an unrecorded interest in land . . . an unrecorded mortgage is good as against the mortgager, his alien or mortgage with notice.”).

Sartoris v. Primecare Medical CEO and Staff

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2024

immunity and Monell liability. 19 on the part of the party seeking an enlargement and some reasonable basis for noncompliance with the time specified in the rules. … In the present matter, Sartoris failed to establish good cause.

Rad v. Lowe

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

In the instant case, Petitioner clearly challenges his conviction and sentence on Count One, asserting that the Third Circuit’s recent decision in his immigration proceedings renders that conviction invalid. (Doc. … No. 17-2290) and because [Petitioner’s] reliance on our opinion in his immigration case does not qualify for authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

Cobbold v. White

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND On September 19, 2018, Cobbold was interviewed and qualified for the RDAP and began the program on October 2, 2018.7 Cobbold was issued warnings … While the RDAP program clearly contemplates early release for some inmates who successfully complete the program, it is also clear that the authority to make such sentencing reductions rests with the BOP since, by statute

Reed v. Eckard

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

In applying it, this Court’s first task is to ascertain what law falls within the scope of the “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States[,]” 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1). … For AEDPA purposes, the Strickland test qualifies as “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495.

Brown v. Monsalud

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2024

In her motion for summary judgment, Defendant Holly does not dispute that Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability, but asserts that medical decisions do not fall within the scope of the ADA. … Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim Defendant Holly seeks summary judgment on the tort claim against her, and appears to argue that she has sovereign immunity. (Doc. 188, p. 8.)

Nunez, Jr. v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.” … Defendant argue for dismissal of this claim because it is improperly joined, and they also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 22.)