Case law

Doe v. Riverside School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2024

These allegations are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference by the District to maintain a § 1983 claim against it. … The exception waives immunity for “Sexual abuse.-- . . .

Diamond Triumph Auto Glass, Inc. v. Safelite Glass Corp.

441 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2006

The court found that the insurer-insured relationship gave rise to a qualified privilege. Id. at 720. … Therefore, we find that the CSRs statements are subject to a qualified privilege.

Sgagias v. Newberry Township Police Department

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

Entertainment Establishments, 369 F.3d 319, 325 (3d Cir. 2004). … For this Court to opine on these issues would clearly supplant the jurisdiction of the state court to rule on these issues leading up to trial.

In re Blue Coal Corp.

152 B.R. 710 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1993

“If the facts found by the district court established that practitioners before it have acted in a way which disqualifies them under its rules and established standards of professional conduct, it would ordinarily be error … Clearly, Charles A.

Vasapolli

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

The plaintiffs claims against defendant Lavin are barred by immunity. … In addition, court personnel are entitled to qualified immunity for nondiscretionary acts, such as entering orders. /d.

Schmidt v. Borough of Stroudsburg

841 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1993

A brief outline and analysis of the events that the plaintiffs claim establish this conspiracy is appropriate at this time. … Also, it is not sufficient to establish any conspiracy in itself.

Burton v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2023

None of the ten exceptions to sovereign immunity apply in the instant case.3 Hence, Burton’s tort claims will be dismissed based on sovereign immunity. 3 Although Section 8522 waives sovereign immunity for claims … (v) The toxoid or vaccine is distributed by a Commonwealth agency to qualified persons for ultimate use. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(9).

Deiter v. City of Wilkes Barre

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2021

Kratz is entitled to qualified immunity." (See Doc. 104 at 38-46). '3 Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is without merit. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

United States v. McKean

835 F. Supp. 227 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1993

Madams Bate and Rogers were the wives of prosecution witnesses at least one of whom received immunity as a result of her husband’s cooperation and plea agreement. … Colletti supra, that “in order to warrant the two [level] enhancement for obstruction of justice, the perjury of the defendant must not only be clearly established, and supported by evidence other than the jury’s having disbelieved

Gouby-Bachman v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

764 F. Supp. 2d 684 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2011

The Bachmans aver that they do not currently qualify for Medicaid, will not qualify for Medicare before the effective date of the individual mandate, and do not otherwise satisfy an exception to the individual mandate. … The government contends that the Bachmans have failed to establish a cognizable injury-in-fact that is traceable to the Act.

Bender v. Norfolk Southern Corp.

31 F. Supp. 3d 659 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2014

(Doc. 87-1, p. 2 of 24.) 4 Plaintiff argues that the guideline clearly indicates that it was not in effect when he was disqualified since it reads, “Per Dr. … The evidence presented at trial clearly demonstrated the correlation between HgAlC levels and episodes of hypoglycemia and/or hyperglycemia, and Plaintiffs own physician testified as to the dangers presented by both hypo

Lester v. Percudani

217 F.R.D. 345 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2003

Sun Co., 565 Pa. 612 , 777 A.2d 442, 446 (2001) (interpreting provision as establishing causation requirement). … That the individuals were allegedly defrauded in a similar manner does not establish common injury.

Ariel Land Owners, Inc. v. Dring

245 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2003

Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir.1990)). 20 The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. McNutt v. … This construction is in harmony with the well-established principle that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Cloverland—Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board

138 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2001

Therefore, the issue before the court is whether the burdens produced on interstate commerce by the PMML clearly outweigh the putative local benefits. … under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 for expert opinion; and (4) his affidavit does not qualify under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 for lay opinion testimony.

Garvey v. Dickinson College

761 F. Supp. 1175 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1991

Garvey has alleged that she was qualified to perform the job, and under Sorba v. … A plaintiff who has established a prima facie showing of discrimination “need only point to evidence establishing a reasonable inference that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence” to survive a motion

Wiley v. United States Board of Parole

380 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 1974

“Whether the Board grants parole is a clearly distinguishable exercise of discretion from revoking one’s conditional freedom. … The Board does not function as an adversary of the prisoner, and it has an interest in releasing those who qualify for parole. Menechino v.

Woods v. Harry

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2023

To his sur reply brief, Plaintiff attaches two articles about cases dealing with qualified immunity.41 (Doc. 62-1, p. 2; Doc. 62-2, p. 2). … This is clearly inapplicable to Plaintiff’s case.

Lapp v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2025

Personal Involvement It is well established that, in Section 1983 actions, liability cannot be “predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.” Rode v. … Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983; state agencies such as the DOC do not qualify. See Will v. Mich.

In Re Three Mile Island Litigation

605 F. Supp. 778 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1985

The legislative history does not come down clearly on either side of this issue. The system of indemnification set out in the Act is described as a compensatory one. … The defenses of negligence, contributory negligence, charitable or governmental immunity and assumption of risk are waived in the event of an extraordinary nuclear occurrence.

Bressi

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2026

Personal Involvement It is well established that, in Section 1983 actions, liability cannot be “predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.”23 Rather, a Section … by a person acting under color of state law.”27 Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as state agencies, prisons, medical departments, or private medical companies generally do not qualify