Case law

Falu

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026

Here, Falu had the burden of establishing her disability between August 31, 2013, and December 31, 2018. See doc. 7-12 at 16. … Thus, the record clearly supports the ALJ’s decision, which considered Falu’s role in taking care of her husband.

WARTLUFT v. THE MILTON HERSHEY SCHOOL AND SCHOOL TRUST

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

order, a party must establish “good cause” for the order, which requires “a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking [to prevent] disclosure. … (a) Documents 127, 135, and 196 At the outset, we note that these three documents relate to discovery disputes between the parties, and thus in our view do not qualify as “judicial records”

Kinsley Enterprises, Inc. v. Kinsley Roofing, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2025

However, Plaintiffs have not established that Defendants engaged in counterfeiting so as to entitle them to statutory damages under the Lanham Act, nor does this case qualify as exceptional to justify an award of attorney … On April 16, 2024, Plaintiffs again received a call from an “individual who claimed to have paid Correa $10,000 to repair his roof and was threatening to sue Kinsley Construction for breach of contract, clearly believing

United States v. Stoehr

100 F. Supp. 143 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 1951

In the absence of a statute the right to immunity is only an equitable one. See United States v. Levy, supra, 153 F.2d at page 997 , and see opinions of Attorneys General, Vol. 38 (1934-1937) p. 94; Mertens Op. … “Evidence is often called direct evidence when, if it be true, it immediately establishes the fact to be proved by it; and indirect when it establishes immediately collateral facts from which the main fact may be inferred

Zavada v. East Stroudsburg University

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2023

The court likened this theory of liability to municipal liability for an officer’s constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and noted that an “obvious need” can be established by knowledge of previous incidents … A cause of action under § 1983 has two elements: a plaintiff must prove (1) a violation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution and laws of the United States (2) that was committed by a person acting

Stephens

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2026

Less than a week later, on August 14, 2025, Stephens filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13) and a document titled, “Attachment Iqbal [sic] Twombley [sic] Addendum to Privileges and Immunities Clause Complaint … Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) Stephens moves for summary judgment on the ground that Lycoming County’s “[b]ails [sic] violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause and, in turn, . . .

Bolus v. Carnicella, Esquire

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2020

And Defendants must provide more than time stamps to establish that the work- 1. … The circuits are currently split on whether opinion work product is afforded absolute or qualified protection. The Third Circuit’s approach is consistent with those of the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and D.C.

United States v. Hammer

404 F. Supp. 2d 676 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2005

Ruben Gur is a qualified expert in neuropsycholo-gy and neuroimaging. (U) 487. Dr. … People who have suffered trauma as a result of child abuse are much more likely to have a lowered immunity. (U) *729 602. Dr.

Siras

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2026

The Court clearly enumerated as much to Petitioner in the Court’s most recent Memorandum Opinion. Doc. 20 at 2. … Marcoski, 898 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2018) (establishing that the Petitioner must prove the fees are clearly inappropriate if she so raises the defense, but nowhere addressing the rates appropriately awarded); Souratgar

Teeter v. Boland

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2021

A plaintiff must establish the particulars of conduct, time, place, and the person responsible. Evancho, 423 F.3d at 354; Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08. … In fact, the record clearly establishes that WPATH does not describe or endorse a particular hormone regimen.

United States v. Lewis

322 F. Supp. 3d 579 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2018

Corricelli has previously been qualified in this District as an expert on child exploitation cases, although for the purposes of the instant motion, he was testifying as a lay witnesses as the lead investigator in this matter … Riddick responded by raising a claim of alibi, claiming that he did not even know Badger and saying that the accusation of murder was unjust. 48 Our Court of Appeals has clearly rejected the Second Circuit's initial Brown

Archer v. York City School District

227 F. Supp. 3d 361 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2016

Having established that basis, Defendants are able to defeat Plaintiffs’ claims of an equal protection violation. … We therefore find that Crispus Attacks is too dissimilar from New Hope and does not qualify as a valid comparator entity for purposes of Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim. .

Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, Inc. v. Duffy

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2025

A mere possibility that the claim might be defeated does not preclude a finding of probable success if the evidence clearly satisfies the essential prerequisites of the cause of action. … Defendants assert that the Bridge’s demolition qualified as an exclusion under 23 C.F.R.

Deonna v. Centre Hills Country Club

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2022

senior golfers, the other for qualifying juniors.80 Although CHCC did not control who qualified and could play in those tournaments, attendees were again restricted to certain areas of the club.81 Nonparticipant spectators … the check immediately or only when the member is fully admitted, but clearly a prospective member must take on some financial impairment to apply. That weighs toward private membership club status.

Young v. Smith

269 F. Supp. 3d 251 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2017

Clearly then, the appropriate hourly rate that Ms. Pollick deserves has converged in recent years to the $200.00-$250.00 range for similar work performed at a similar level in similar forums. … Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 857 F.2d 191 (3d Cir. 1988), "cannot be wielded by sole practitioners as immunity against Rule 11 sanctions ad infinitum.” Keister v. PPL Corp., 318 F.R.D. 247, 272 (M.D. Pa. 2015).

Nicholson v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2019

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must prove: (1) he is a member of the protected class, i.e., he is at least 40 years old; (2) he is qualified for the position in question; (3) he suffered … A demotion clearly fits within these parameters. F.3d at 233.6 But Nicholson provides other evidence of retaliatory animus.

Kelly v. Kellner

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2025

personnel or specialists, and in conjunction with the affected inmate, shall make the diagnosis of a qualified disability, unless previously diagnosed, and shall determine the level of accommodation needed and provide … To the extent that supervisory liability survives after Iqbal, the scope of that liability is clearly and narrowly defined.

Irwin v. Fry Communications, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2023

To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination at the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must show four elements: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the … Instead, the evidence clearly shows that King’s actions arose from animus toward Irwin because she reported him to a supervisor.

Klemm

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

While another inmate was having his blood drawn, Craig observed phlebotomist Jane Doe #6 “touching [the inmate’s] puncture site with her gloved hand and freely touching other surfaces that clearly had not … 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.

Lahovski v. Rush Township, Pennsylvania

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

He must allege:1) that the alleged misconduct was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) that as a result, he was deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws … Thus, this second alleged incident fails to qualify as a protected First Amendment activity. See id.