Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,574 results
1.25s
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2023
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. … If “the motion does not establish the absence of a genuine factual issue, the district court should deny summary judgment even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMelissa R. Jackson v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Company
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2025
When a magistrate judge’s decision involves a discretionary [discovery] matter ..., “courts in this district have determined that the clearly erroneous standard implicitly becomes an abuse of discretion … Rather, “[w]ork product prepared in the ordinary course of business is not immune from discovery.” Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 213 F.8d 124, 138 (3d Cir. 2000).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2020
The burden is on the claimant to show that an impairment qualifies as severe. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146. … “[S]uch references to ‘all impairments’ encompass only those that are medically established.” (Id.).
Cited 0 timesUnknownWall v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2025
In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the “paragraph C” criteria. … 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.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2021
Such widespread action would have left Crossley without a forum to adjudicate his claim and it would have denied him even the opportunity to qualify for benefits. … Based on the foregoing, the record clearly demonstrates that Crossley has failed to satisfy the requirements of § 405(g) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a) by not seeking Appeals Council review of ALJ Barletta’s decision to deny
Cited 0 timesUnknown90 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2000
In this case, the indictment does not concern only a non-cognizable loss or the deprivation of some intangible right that does not qualify as “property.” … Empire’s reporting forms, and Lackawanna County’s interest in scarce and valuable landfill space — so that the defendants will not face the possibility of being convicted of mail fraud based upon property interests not clearly
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2026
However, comparing the proposed second amended complaint to Polischak’s first amended complaint, Polischak clearly adds Williams and Ciallella as defendants to all three counts. (Doc. 21, at 5-24). … Polischak’s counsel contends that the FMLA claims against Williams and Ciallella are grounded in fact and supported by well-established law, and, therefore, sanctions are unfounded. (Doc. 27, at 2-3).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 8, 2020
At the time that she applied for these disability benefits, the plaintiff was 31 years old and qualified as a younger worker under the Commissioner’s regulations. (Tr. 71). … Cir. 2011) (referencing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2022
ANALYSIS To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human … Relations Act, employees must show that “(1) [they are] a disabled person within the meaning of the [Americans with Disabilities Act]; (2) [they are] otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2022
These conditions, according to Cruz, “clearly have more than a slight impact on [Y.R.C.’s] ability to function, and should have been considered” by the ALJ. … “In a child's claim for benefits, an impairment is not severe if the evidence establishes no more than a minimal effect on a claimant's ability to function in an age-appropriate manner.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2021
Pope’s conclusions are clearly based on his extensive “personal knowledge or experience” in this specialized industry. See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 150. … The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Tincher articulated two methods by which plaintiffs can establish a “defective condition”: the consumer-expectations test and the risk-utility test.
Cited 0 timesUnknownEssintial Enterprise Solutions, LLC v. The United States Small Business Administration
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2024
The OHA decision does not clearly state that the IFR applies to the Loan. … The government bears the burden to establish first that the agency action giving rise to the litigation was substantially justified, and second, that its litigatior positions were substantially justified.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBetter Path Coalition Planning Group v. City of Harrisburg
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2025
rather than any citations to legal support, also argue that the “[p]laintiffs cannot on the one hand assert the right of the Coalition to bring suit, and on the other, present it as an entity with no form or substance, immune … This common13 interrogatory clearly has a tendency to make the existence of facts vital to the plaintiffs’ claims more or less probable. Cf Fed. R. Evid. 401.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2019
App’x. 674, 676 (3d Cir. 2012) (A plaintiff does not establish a constitutional violation when he establishes only that he had a “mere hope” that he would prevail on the underlying claim.). … Allah decides to file an amended complaint, he must clearly label it, on the face of the document, “Amended Complaint.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 2022
The burden is on the claimant to show that an impairment qualifies as severe. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146, 107 S.Ct. 2287. Stancavage v. Saul, 469 F.Supp.3d 311, 331 (M.D. … Cir. 2011) (referencing 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(a) (“statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2026
If the party moving for summary judgment meets its burden to identify “specific portions of the record that establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,” then the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to “ … Other than reciting the standard, Niblett does not explain how the issues she presents qualify as “controlling question[s] of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” or how “an immediate
Cited 0 timesUnknownGanczarski v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2022
reason for [her termination].”115 Importantly, the shifting burden concerns only the evidentiary burden of production; “[Ganczarski] has the ultimate burden of persuasion at all times.”116 Specifically, Ollie’s must “clearly … “(1) [she] is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [she] is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodations by [Ollie’s]; and (3) [she] has
Cited 0 timesUnknownCory v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 2025
Even assuming that it was not cumulative and would qualify as new, Plaintiff fails to make any argument as to how any of the new evidence he has submitted is material. … “It is well established that a physician’s statement that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” is not binding on the ALJ, as opinions as to whether a claimant is disabled is reserved to the Commissioner of Social
Cited 0 timesUnknownGuerriero v. Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2019
A search committee of seven individuals from Lock Haven University was formed to find a qualified applicant for the Athletic Director position. Id. at ¶ 56. The chairman of the search committee was Michael G. … Guerriero Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2026
under the FHA; (3) the complaint fails to allege that Defendants are “persons” as defined by the FHA or that Defendants took any action prohibited by the FHA; and (4) the complaint is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity … However, as noted supra, Defendants’ motion clearly raises a facial, not a factual, challenge to Plaintiff’s standing. See (Doc. No. 15 at 30–31).
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna