Case law

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.

Stradling v. Southland Corporation

924 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1996

Southland, however, also informed the Stradlings that they could transfer their franchise to another 7-Eleven store for which they were qualified. … This, they contend, demonstrates that it was within the contemplation of the parties that a franchise could be established in New Jersey. This argument must fail.

McGee v. Conyngham Township

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2020

Immunity Under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act a. … was within the policymaking discretion granted to the employee by law.”106 McGee opposes what he perceives to be Defendants’ employment of the qualified immunity doctrine; but McGee does not oppose Defendants’ Pennsylvania

Watsontown Brick Company v. Hercules Powder Company

265 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1967

A single act of negligence does not establish incompetence and inexperience. … The witness was competent to testify and the evaluation of the testimony was clearly for the determination of the jury.

Doe v. Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2022

Viewed in a light most favorable to Doe, this response may be “clearly unreasonable” to a reasonable factfinder. … But as a state university, Shippensburg University “shall continue to enjoy sovereign immunity and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity

Ramirez v. Pugh

486 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2007

As a result, we deemed the claims against defendants in their individual capacities as being withdrawn, and found that any arguments concerning qualified immunity would be moot. (Rec.Doc. … Clearly, Mauro establishes that actual issues of security connected to prisoner possession of pornography have arisen in facilities comparable to the ones controlled by the BOP.

Healthamerica Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Susquehanna Health System

278 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2003

Defendants assert numerous defenses, including Noerr-Pennington immunity, state action immunity, and the Copperweld doctrine. … Clearly, where competition does not exist, the statute cannot apply.”).

Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown

401 F. Supp. 1242 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1975

The ordinance prohibits minors of specific age groups from being on the streets of the Borough during clearly specified hours unless they are accompanied by a parent or otherwise qualify under one of the numerous exceptions … However, personal freedoms are not absolute, and the liberty guaranteed by the due process clause implies absence of arbitrary interferences but not immunity from reasonable regulations. Gere v.

Showers v. Endoscopy Center of Central Pennsylvania, LLC

58 F. Supp. 3d 446 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2014

qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) that [s]he was subjected to an adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination.” … Showers does not clearly identify which major life activity ECCP perceived that her impairment substantially limited in June 2011.

COM. DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services

623 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1985

This type of document is clearly not subject to routine disclosure in a civil discovery context, and therefore is protected by exemption 5 to the FOIA. … The three sentences reflect the opinions of the author only and do not state established policy of the agency.

Stilp v. Contino

629 F. Supp. 2d 449 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2009

The mere possibility that the claim might be defeated does not preclude a finding of probable success if the evidence clearly satisfies the essential prerequisites of the cause of action. Highmark, Inc. v. … Therefore, the court concludes that Stilp has established the element of irreparable harm. C.

Ramalingam v. Robert Packer Hospital/Guthrie Healthcare System Auxiliary

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2021

“Evidence should only be excluded on a motion in limine if it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. … They have failed to show that expert testimony establishing that Ramalingam cannot practice in the HBP subspecialty is required.

Haddock v. Christos

866 F. Supp. 170 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1994

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. … They assert that the conviction “alone establishes the existence of probable cause” and demonstrates that the plaintiff cannot establish lack of probable cause. Id.

Wyatt v. Malisko

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2020

The remaining Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on April 26, 2019, arguing that they are entitled to summary judgment on the merits of Wyatt’s claims and that they are entitled to qualified immunity … immunity.

Goudy-Bachman v. DEPT. 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.

United States v. Lewis

514 F. Supp. 169 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1981

Accordingly, a plan need fit only one of the groupings in order to qualify for application of the statute. United States v. … The latter case held that election fraud constituted a sufficient “scheme or artifice” to qualify for application of the mail fraud statute.

Gottschall

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2026

Commission on Adult Entertainment Establishments, 369 F.3d 319, 325 (3d Cir. 2004). … Absent an express waiver of the immunity established by the Eleventh Amendment, all of these agencies, and their employees who are sued in their official capacities, are absolutely immune from lawsuits

Chalhoub v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2024

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Trooper Olszar on plaintiffs Section 1983 claim after determining that Trooper Olszar enjoyed qualified immunity from that claim. (Id.) … Moreover, the court determined that amendment of the Section 1983 claim against Warden Lowe would be futile based on his assertion of qualified immunity. Id. at *6—*7.

Hoberman v. Lock Haven Hospital

377 F. Supp. 1178 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1974

In order to qualify for the Medicare program, the Hospital must meet other standards, none of which relate to procedural requirements of actions taken by the medical staff. … Specifically, he notes that the Rules and Regulations require that the Hospital establish a medical staff which is “legally, professionally and ethically qualified for the positions to which they are appointed.”

Smart Communications Holding, Inc. v. Global Tel-Link Corporation

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2022

The York Defendants argue that they are entitled to Parker immunity here because they were acting pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy. (Doc. 36, pp. 7–11.) … CONST. 5 Because the court concludes that the York Defendants are not entitled to Parker immunity at this juncture, it follows that GTL is not entitled to Parker immunity because the presence of a clearly expressed state