Case law

Barnhart v. United Penn Bank

515 F. Supp. 1198 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1981

The record does not clearly explain the reason for the remand. … In this case, the documents sought are clearly those of the intervenors. 13 .

Southerton Corp. v. United Penn Bank (In Re Southerton Corp.)

46 B.R. 391 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1982

Second, United Penn might establish that its liens and interest exceeded the market value of The Escape. … The Bankruptcy Judge clearly did not abuse his discretion in so finding.

Evans v. McClellan

133 F. Supp. 342 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1955

She has no claim as an heir of the decedent unless she can establish by such interpretation that (1) it was her name that was deleted in the third from the last line of the first page of this will, and that (2) such deletion … The principle involved here and the law applicable thereto is clearly set forth in Princess Lida of Thurn and Taxis v.

Seeherman v. Lynn

404 F. Supp. 1318 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 1975

4623 ; the Authority informed them that they were not eligible to receive such relocation assistance, inasmuch as they had not occupied the home prior to its destruction by the flood in the summer of 1972 and hence did not qualify … To begin with, the purpose of the U.R.A., which no one disputes is legitimate, is clearly stated in 42 U.S.C. § 4621 , which provides: “The purpose of this subchapter is to establish a uniform policy for the fair and equitable

Alba v. Housing Authority of City of Pittston

400 F. Supp. 2d 685 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2005

Age discrimination may be established by direct or indirect evidence. See Connors v. Chrysler Fin. … The standards for determining a motion to amend a pleading and a summary judgment motion are clearly different.

Hershey v. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2023

has validly abrogated such immunity. … of antagonism, coupled with timing to establish a causal link.”

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

Thornton-Bey v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2024

immunity. … Deliberate 6Because Thornton-Bey’s claims are not viable under Bivens, the Court declines to address Defendants’ arguments as to personal involvement and qualified immunity.

Smith v. Morgan

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2024

Here, Morgan’s actions—initiating misconduct charges against Smith—are clearly the kind of actions that he is employed to perform as a correctional officer. … Ct. of Nev., Humboldt Cnty., 542 U.S. 177, 189 (2004) (“To qualify for the Fifth Amendment privilege, a communication must be testimonial, incriminating, and compelled.”).

Shade v. Welsh

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2019

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic or delusional” factual … The “Clerk of Court is absolutely immune for discretionary acts and court personnel receive qualified immunity for nondiscretionary acts.” Gary v. Gardner, 445 F. App’x 465, 467 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Wallace v.

Smeltz

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2026

As to the heads of DHS and TSA, named in their official capacities only, the claim is barred by sovereign immunity. … immunity.

Sill v. Pennsylvania State University

318 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1970

A course of conduct is not entitled to First Amendment immunity merely because the conduct was initiated, evidenced or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written or printed. Giboney v. … It is a widely used and well understood word and clearly so when juxtaposed with ‘obstruct’ and ‘interfere.’

Pearson v. Miller

988 F. Supp. 848 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1997

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. … The courts have recognized only two exceptions to the general rule established by the holding in DeShaney .

Bell v. Houser

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2024

To succeed on a Rule 12(c) motion, the movant must clearly establish that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. … There appears to be a sufficient factual basis from the pleadings for Boone to assert the affirmative defenses of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and qualified immunity.

Holocheck v. Luzerne County Head Start, Inc.

385 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2005

Assuming, arguendo, that the decision to terminate Holocheck’s employment with Head Start was committed by a person acting under color of state law, she must show that she was deprived of “rights, privileges, or immunities … Clearly, Holocheck, as a teacher, is not a member of the class of the legislation’s intended beneficiaries.

Johnson v. Fisher

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2022

applies to both negligent and intentional torts committed by Commonwealth actors.87 Because statutory immunity is an affirmative defense, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that his conduct was within the … As for Killinger and Shope, their conduct (while potentially tortious), was also clearly within the scope of employment.

United States v. Shimek

445 F. Supp. 884 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1978

The Indictment and Information clearly states that for the years 1975, 1976, and 1977, John C. … These Defendants are now biased by this counter action and are therefore not qualified to proceed against Shimek. 3.

Yanoski v. Silgan White Cap Americas, LLC

179 F. Supp. 3d 413 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2016

render [him] otherwise qualified.” … Here, Defendant argues that (1) Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) he was not qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, and (3) Plaintiff failed to establish any failure to accommodate

Ramalingam v. Robert Packer Hospital/Guthrie Healthcare System Auxiliary

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2019

Ramalingam achieved a requisite score on a qualifying examination and demonstrated the necessary clinical skills for a PGY-4 as attested to by Dr. VanderMeer.2 Dr. … Ramalingam early qualifies as a professional review action must be decided by the jury.

Kruise v. United States Department of the Army

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2023

It is well established that Congress has not waived this immunity for Bivens claims asserted against the United States or its agencies (i.e., the Army). See e.g. Wilson v. … Second, Plaintiff alleges that he is qualified to perform his job with or without reasonable accommodation.