Case law

United States v. Robinson

513 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2007

This does not mean that omissions are immune from Franks scrutiny, only that an affiant is not re *178 quired to share all that he or she knows about the investigation in an affidavit in support of a search warrant. … I have set forth only those facts that I believe are essential to establish foundation necessary to support an order authorizing the interception of wire communications.

Gates v. The Grier Foundation

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2024

(holding that governmental entity was not a reporting agency and observing that holding otherwise would “give rise to a host of potential constitutional issues” such as derogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity … However, Section 9102 also provides that the words and phrases used in CHRIA “shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.”64 When Section 9125 is read in the context

Segraves v. Smith

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2020

Rather, “[t]he state court’s application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable” before a federal court may grant the writ. … 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.

Richardson v. Clark

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

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 … Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint, but he must clearly label the document as his third amended complaint and use the docket number assigned to this case.

Molina v. Pennsylvania Social Service Union, Service Employees International

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 8, 2020

Summary judgment is appropriate where the non-moving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof … any 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

USA ex rel Michael S. Lord v. North American Partners In Anesthesia, LLP

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2019

“Good cause’ is established when it is specifically demonstrated that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury.” Glenmede, 56 F.3d at 483. There must be a “particular need for protection.” … “[T]he party asserting waiver of work-product immunity, rather than the party asserting the work-product protection, has the burden of establishing waiver.” Maldonado v. New Jersey ex rel.

Shearer v. Saul

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2022

The Social Security Act provides that in order to qualify for disability benefits, a child must have “a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations, and … On this score, however, it is also clearly established that the ALJ’s treatment of this issue must go beyond a summary conclusion, since a bare conclusion “is beyond meaningful judicial review.”

PIZARRO v. WETZEL

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2020

To the extent that supervisory liability survives after Iqbal, the scope of that liability is clearly and narrowly defined. … However, to establish this type of § 1983 claim against a policymaker, a plaintiff must allege and prove that the policymaker established or enforced policies directly causing the deprivation of constitutional

Guerrero v. Quay

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2020

Petitioner argues that Rehaif “clearly establishes that [he] was convicted of conduct that the law does not make criminal.” (Id. at 10.) … possession of the firearms located at the relevant residence, that he was never served with the sentencing enhancement information filed by the Government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, and that his prior convictions did not qualify

Martin v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company

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

The Supreme Court has clearly established that proof of federal funding is a requisite element of establishing preemption of inadequate signage claims.83 And though some courts have relaxed the level of specificity needed … .2d at 696 (“A railroad company that places a crossing at a point where it cannot be seen by the traveler until he is practically committed to passing over it, cannot use the stop, look and listen sign as a badge of immunity

Moy v. Williams

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2023

To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, Moy must plead facts allowing us to plausibly infer: “(1) he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) who was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits … As the second amended complaint in its current form does not clearly set forth any claims against Defendants, dismissal is warranted.

Walker v. Edwards

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2022

Ulcerative tinea pedis occurs most frequently in people with diabetes and others with weak immune systems. … Assuming without deciding that Plaintiff suffered from a serious medical need or condition, Plaintiff’s pleadings clearly demonstrate that Plaintiff received medical attention, and that the attention Plaintiff

Saltos v. O'Malley

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2024

In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the "paragraph C" criteria as the record does not establish that the claimant has marginal adjustment, meaning minimal capacity to adapt to changes in his … On this score, however, it is also clearly established that the ALJ's treatment of this issue must go beyond a summary conclusion, since a bare conclusion “is beyond meaningful judicial review.”

Jean v. Bucknell University

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2021

In response, Jean sets forth two theories purportedly establishing Bucknell’s duty of care. … Sullivan, 572 A.2d 1209, 1213 (Pa. 1990) (“Clearly, in modern times, it would be inappropriate to impose an in loco parentis duty upon 2.

Houle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2020

or less-qualified male employees and by promoting them less quickly and less frequently than similarly-qualified or less-qualified male employees.” … Although “it is the burden of the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute,” Hays, 515 U.S. at

Kozak

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2025

“Nevertheless, a ‘trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Tartaglione, 228 F. … The Kozaks, pointing to federal case law, counterargue that even serious injury does not automatically qualify as undue prejudice against a defendant. Doc. 76 at 6.

United States v. Shenandoah

572 F. Supp. 2d 566 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2008

The textual origin of the right to travel is uncertain; it has been held to derive from the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article IV, § 2, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth … The Court has provided that a Congressional enactment will satisfy the nondelegation doctrine if it clearly delineates the public policy underlying the act, identifies the public agency which is to apply the act, and establishes

Jesse Aaron Chandler v. United States of America

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

It does not, inter alia, (1) establish a procedure for a prisoner to submit the petition, /.e. … , but conspicuously does not establish any particular procedure to follow in doing so”).

Bell v. Fountain

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

fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.18 III. … , of any State or Territory, 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

McKenzie v. Tice

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2020

seeking relief in federal court, we have held that when a petitioner fails to raise his federal claims in compliance with relevant state procedural rules, the state court’s refusal to adjudicate the claim ordinarily qualifies … 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.