Case law

Balliet v. Whitmire

626 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1986

, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … The case was thus clearly controlled by Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) and Bishop v.

Griggs v. Bic Corp.

844 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1994

Plaintiffs qualified Trooper Lotwick as an expert in the causes and origins of fires. … Plaintiffs were allowed to establish the point they sought to establish. E. Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion Defendant seeks sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 against Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Rodriguez v. Carbon County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2025

Their reply brief muddies the waters by invoking qualified immunity on behalf of this defendant. … “Although qualified immunity is a question of law determined by the [clourt, when qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of fact, those issues must be determined by the jury.” Monteiro v.

Woodring v. The Replublican Caucus of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2020

Woodring alleges that one of his coworkers falsely accused him of assault where “the accusations were fabricated and [Woodring] was clearly innocent.” (Id. ¶ 25−26.) … The plaintiff has the burden of establishing jurisdiction when defending against both factual and facial attacks.

Benjamin v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF PENN.

768 F. Supp. 2d 747 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2011

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs assert that, because they are qualified for and unopposed to community integration, their continued institutionalization violates the antidiscrimination mandates of the ADA and Section 504. … Clearly, those who are currently receiving no services should have the opportunity to acquire supports; but within the dictates of the law DPW cannot continue to ensure this by relegating institutionalized individuals to

Dongarra v. Smith

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

immunity. … Defendants Are Entitled to Sovereign Immunity The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States or its agencies unless the government has waived that immunity. FDIC v.

Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of Representatives

327 F. Supp. 3d 748 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2018

The Parliamentarian plays a key role in determining whether a potential guest chaplain qualifies under this House policy. (Myer Dep. 9:6-19). … Furthermore, sovereign immunity would bar money damages claims against defendants in their official capacities. Edelman v. Jordan , 415 U.S. 651 , 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974).

Eickley

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2026

“[W]hether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity depends on whether she establishes that she was functioning as the state’s ‘advocate’ while engaging in the alleged conduct that gives rise to the constitutional … Because Eickley’s claims against Defendant Chardo are clearly based upon his actions or inactions as a prosecutor representing the Commonwealth in Eickley's state criminal proceedings, he is entitled to absolute immunity

United States v. Parks

237 F. Supp. 3d 229 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2017

As in Graves , the court does not agree with the government, (Doc. 50 at 5), that “Calabret-ta is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.” … The court stated that “under the categorical approach, the court needed only to look to the fact of [defendant’s] conviction to conclude that, in pleading guilty, he necessarily admitted a fact establishing the required element

United States v. Smith

379 F. Supp. 3d 355 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2019

A court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing when the motion "allege[s] any facts warranting § 2255 relief that are not clearly resolved by the record." United States v. … Discussion Smith filed the instant motion seeking to vacate his Section 924(c) conviction and consecutive mandatory minimum sentence based on the Supreme Court's 2015 Johnson decision. 1 Section 924(c) establishes enhanced

Trout v. MILTON S. HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER

576 F. Supp. 2d 673 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2008

The testimony is highly specialized and undoubtedly qualifies as expert testimony within the scope of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See, e.g., Ditch v. … Clearly, prognosis, risk, and recovery must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and Dr. Brumback’s generalizations are not representative of Trout’s condition. He has not applied his opinions to the facts of this case.

Hypolite v. Blackman

57 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1999

with multiple criminal convictions with an aggregate sentence of five years or more, subpara-graph (D) deals with prostitution and commercialized vice, and subparagraph (E) with certain crimes in which the alien invoked immunity … We also reject his contention that the actual sentence imposed must be more than one year to qualify as a federal felony and hence as an aggravated felony.

Klain v. Pennsylvania State University

434 F. Supp. 571 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 1977

The mandatory retirement policy adopted and effectuated by defendants is clearly subject to the less strict test of rationality under the two-tier equal protection model. … The ability to use mandatory retirement for this purpose clearly enables the University to maintain employee morale and support for the institution . . (Fortunato Affidavit.)

Millhouse v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2021

Qualified Immunity “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 … indication” that a defendant’s conduct at issue did not violate a “clearly established” right.

Goodwin v. Moyer

549 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2006

. § 1983 , he must establish two elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured … “The plaintiff admits he worked for defendant Husband but contends he nonetheless qualifies as an employee of the School District.

Wilson v. Horwitz

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2020

Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 72 (2001) (“If a federal prisoner in a BOP facility alleges a constitutional deprivation, he may bring a Bivens claim against the offending individual officer, subject to the defense of qualified immunity … Wilson asserts no such waiver of sovereign immunity, and the United States and its agencies have not waived their immunity from suit.

Lisker v. Kelley

315 F. Supp. 777 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1970

She also contends that the said oath requirement, by summarily disqualifying her as a candidate for office, is in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment because it denies qualified electors their right to vote for her in the … Although the above Pennsylvania statute, as amended, does not expressly draw the distinction between acts (including advocacy) producing or inciting imminent lawless action and clearly harmless acts; see Brandenburg v.

Rossman v. K Mart Corp.

701 F. Supp. 1127 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1988

The evidence must establish a reasonably fair basis upon which the jury can calculate the plaintiff’s loss. American Air Filter Co., Inc. v. McNichol, 527 F.2d 1297 (3d Cir.1975). … Under Pennsylvania law, to receive punitive damages for a tort it is required that the plaintiff establish that tortious conduct was outrageous. Pierce v.

Oberdorf v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

295 F. Supp. 3d 496 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2017

Courts have interpreted § 230 expansively, noting that the immunity provided by that section "does not depend on the form of the asserted cause of action[, but] rather ... on whether the cause of action necessarily requires … /Tobacco Exporters Inter. , 135 F.3d 876 , 881 (3d Cir. 1998) ("To recover under § 402A, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the product was defective; (2) that the defect was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries

HARRISBURG COALITION AGAINST RUINING THE ENVIR. v. Volpe

381 F. Supp. 893 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1974

It is also well established "that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by its own citizens as well as by citizens of another State." Employees v. … A state may, of course, waive its immunity from suit, Parden v.