Case law

Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc.

107 F.R.D. 771 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1985

Given Pennsylvania’s “Dram Shop Act,” Pa.Stat.Ann. title 47, § 4-493(1) (Purdon 1969 & Supp.1985), which renders a liquor establishment owner or employee civilly liable in damages for selling liquor to a visibly intoxicated … “Thus it [is] clear that a report from the insured to the insurer is within the immunity as also will be statements obtained by investigators for the insurer.”

Federal Trade Commission v. Scientific Living, Inc.

150 F. Supp. 495 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 1957

As to individual witnesses, § 9 offers immunity, see Lansky v. Savoretti, 5 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 906 , at page 910; Sherwin v. … “The Administrative Procedure Act, § 5, establishes a number of formal requirements to be applicable.

Leer Elec., Inc. v. PENNSYLVANIA, DEPT. OF LABOR

597 F. Supp. 2d 470 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2009

In short, the Young court’s holding established that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state officers to prevent violations against the laws or Constitution of the United States. … The Court believes that these averments clearly satisfy the first step in the Matheivs analysis.

ESTATE OF STEPHEN PUZA v. Carbon County

586 F. Supp. 2d 271 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2007

The plaintiffs have also failed to establish this exception. … Tort Claims Act; and whether the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ramos-Ramirez v. Berwick Borough

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2022

Qualified Immunity The Defendants next argue that Officer Rafferty is “entitled to the protections of qualified immunity” because “the right of [Ramos-Ramirez] to be free … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “officers performing discretionary functions ‘are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Webb v. Columbia County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2022

‘[It] is an established variation on imprisonment of convicted criminals. … responsibility for the agency’s debts”51 The limited record before the Court does not clearly establish how CCCYS is funded or whether Pennsylvania would satisfy

Monter v. United States

440 F. Supp. 44 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1977

Small Business Administration, 380 F.Supp. 1059, 1060 (E.D.Pa.1974), “The law has been clearly established that a court can review an SBA decision only if it is arbitrary, capricious or erroneous as a matter of law.” … As the administrator was acting within the outer limits of his duty, he is immune from damage liability. Capital Refrigeration Inc. v. United States, supra.

Stockton v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Next, the Court must determine whether such right was “clearly established” at the time of Defendants’ actions. Santini, 795 F.3d at 417.

United States v. Chiolo

560 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1983

Plaintiff alleges that numerous attempts were made to establish a voluntary payment of the judgment, to no avail. … Defendant argues that construing the statute to exclude the Commonwealth flies in the face of the recent judicial abrogation of sovereign immunity in Mayle v.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Barron Industries, Inc.

809 F. Supp. 355 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1992

Moreover, the term “property damage” is qualified by the term “tangible”. … Accordingly, the claims clearly fall within the policy period. 4.

Monche v. Grill

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

Judge Barrasse would likely qualify for absolute immunity as “[j]udges are absolutely immune from liability in civil actions, including section 1983 actions, for their judicial acts.”83 This immunity does not apply to … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly

Keddie v. Pennsylvania State University

412 F. Supp. 1264 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 1976

The judiciary is not qualified to evaluate academic performance. The courts do not possess the expert knowledge or have the academic experience which should enlighten an academic committee’s decision. … The language *1276 requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the

Keslosky v. Borough of Old Forge

66 F. Supp. 3d 592 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2014

To succeed on his constitutional claims, including First Amendment retaliation, Keslosky must have first established that he was otherwise qualified to serve as a police officer, which in turn depends on when his certification … An admission by the Borough is unnecessary to this inquiry, and impermis-sibly shifts the burden, as it is clearly established that a statute of limitations begins to accrue “as soon as a potential claimant either is aware

Kutz v. United States

392 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1975

Plaintiffs argue that the key man payments qualify under the “production or collection of income” subsection. … Indeed, it was in Woodward wherein the Court declared that “where property is acquired by purchase, nothing is more clearly part of the process of acquisition than the establishment of a purchase price.” 397 U.S., at 579,

McCoy v. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co.

933 F. Supp. 438 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1996

Dismissal is not appropriate unless “it clearly appears that no relief can be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistently with the plaintiffs allegations.” Id. … To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: 1) he is “disabled” as defined by the ADA; 2) he is qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to do the job he held or seeks; and 3) his

Starks v. Northern York County Regional Police Department

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

To resolve this claim of qualified immunity, the court must (1) decide if the facts alleged “make out a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) if so, determine if the “right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the … Thus, the Lebo Affidavit clearly establishes a reasonable belief that Starks committed a crime.

Cooper

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2026

SCI Dallas to be closer to his family, he was required to have five years of misconduct-free “good behavior” and obtain staff recommendations and votes.7 Cooper additionally alleges that he is an individual with “qualified … P. 8(d)(2)-(3) (permitting plaintiff to plead alternative, even if inconsistent, claims). 68 Cooper does not clearly explain what “services, programs, or

Hovis v. County of Lebanon

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2025

established.” … immunity.

Christy v. Hammel

87 F.R.D. 381 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1980

To qualify for consideration under the provision, a person must be moved to an “approved facility.” … In the instant case, the requisites of the test have clearly been met.

STEVEN SHADLE v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, et al.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2025

City of Phila., 989 F.2d 117, 122 (3d Cir. 1993)); id. at 738 (“Although it is more difficult to determine whether an applicant veteran qualifies for the preference under § 7104(a), that veteran, if qualified, is no less … Evans scored lower than he did in pre- interview reviews, further supporting an inference that they were similarly qualified, or even that Shadle was more qualified.108 On the second