Case law

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.)

Ortiz

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2026

Under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting standard, a plaintiff must “establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by demonstrating she (1) was a member of a protected class. . . , (2) was qualified for the … Termination “for violating an employer's policy prohibiting workplace violence is ‘clearly a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating an employee.’” Smith v. Walgreen Co., 964 F.

Charles

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

See Doc. 43. 5 See generally Doc. 44. 6 This is supported by the fact that a motion under Rule 60(b) would clearly … for such status.28 She also re-raises the fact that “the single use of a racial epithet … [can be] severe enough to establish a hostile work environment.”29 But in its opinion, the Court acknowledged that this can be

DeJesus v. Shoemaker

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 8, 2025

Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, agencies, and private businesses do not qualify as “persons.” See Will v. Mich. … Most notably, he must clearly set forth the personal involvement of any named defendant in the alleged constitutional violation.

Kemberling v. Capozza

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2023

The “clearly established Federal law” governing sufficiency of the evidence claims is set forth in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). … Clearly, the Superior Court applied the Pennsylvania equivalent of the Jackson standard. See Evans v.

Bonilla v. Saul

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2021

Further, to qualify as “severe,” the impairment, or combination of impairments, must “significantly limit[ ] [a claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.921(c). … Therefore, Bonilla’s testimony is insufficient, by itself, to establish a physical or mental impairment.

Zamichieli v. Delbalso

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

United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. §1983 (2012). … Timing alone can suffice to establish a causal link, but the timing of the retaliatory action must be “unusually suggestive” of a retaliatory motive. Krouse v. Am.

Solomon v. Neisner Bros.

93 F. Supp. 310 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1950

To establish such a covenant, plaintiff relies upon Par. 11 of the lease which reads as follows: In case the premises herein demised, or any part thereof, shall, during said term, be destroyed or damaged by fire, or other … Dallas Enterprises, Inc., Texas, Tex.Civ.App.1926, 288 S.W. 656 , affirmed, Tex.Com.App.1927, 298 S.W. 397 ; there the obligation to restore was clearly expressed; Phillips v.

BUTTOLPH v. ADAMS

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2020

For AEDPA purposes, the Strickland test qualifies as “clearly established Federal law, as 29 determined by the Supreme Court.” … established federal law.

Roche v. Saul

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2021

First, when presented with a disputed factual record, it is well-established that “[t]he ALJ – not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants – must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations … The burden is on the claimant to show that an impairment qualifies as severe. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146.

DIAZ v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2023

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. … to clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Buttolph v. PrimeCare Medical Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2020

Further, the discovery rule is not applicable because Buttolph was clearly aware of his alleged injury and its cause in August 2013. … The complaint filed on February 22, 2016, was clearly filed beyond the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations.

Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Foster Township

46 F. Supp. 2d 396 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1999

Omnipoint argued that its proposed monopole qualified as a public utility permitted use. (Id.) The Board determined that Omnipoint’s proposed use was not a permitted public utility use. (Id. ¶ 15.) … Although there may have been some homes within the district, it clearly did not have a residential character. Cf.

Whitfield v. Commonwealth of PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2020

Nor can an inmate avoid this exhaustion requirement by merely alleging that the administrative policies were not clearly explained to him. Warman, 49 F. App’x at 368. … Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), the Supreme Court established “that the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity” are not subject to civil

Miller v. Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2024

As one Third Circuit judge has observed, the actions of entering a default judgment and setting one aside are “clearly distinguishable,” and the Chamberlain court “may have unwittingly imposed an unrealistic and misplaced … Miller’s unchallenged complaint presents facts that establish a legitimate cause of action for racial discrimination.

Hunter v. Lehigh Valley Mount Pocono Hospital

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2023

“Section 1983 imposes civil liability upon any person who, acting under the color of state law, deprives another individual of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States … As the second amended complaints in their current form do not clearly set forth any claims against Defendants, dismissal is warranted.

M. Danner v. The Attorney General of the United States

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2023

Indeed, the Court is skeptical that all three would qualify as such. … Knapp, though unsolicited and unwanted, does not qualify as “severe”: Lt.

State College Area School District v. Royal Bank of Canada

825 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2011

The above discussion of impleader clearly indicates that, often, the liability of the impleading party will not yet be firmly established at the time he files his third-party complaint. … In attempting to establish the immunizing effect of these clauses, Rhoads relies on a 1995 case decided by the District Court for Vermont, Wash. Elec. Cooperative v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec.

Ortiz v. Kijakazi

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2024

Introduction The Social Security Act provides a social safety net for children who face profoundly disabling physical or emotional impairments but, in order to qualify … Sept. 30, 2014) (“A claimant must establish that a medically determinable impairment affects his or her functioning during the relevant period, and simply having a past history of impairment does not establish that the

Rhine v. Saul

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2021

In this matter, the record clearly does not establish these criteria. … Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990), Meeting only some criteria of a listing “no matter how severely does not qualify.” Id.