Case law

Brown v. Richardson

395 F. Supp. 185 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 1975

Furthermore, we find that this case is clearly distinguishable from Ritter v. United States, supra. Publication of the pamphlet was not in any sense “a particular transaction.” … For example, even if the Secretary or his representative affirmatively misrepresented to plaintiff that deceased’s stay in a nursing home would qualify him for a new spell of illness (and therefore a new benefits period),

United States v. Forsythe

429 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1977

Levitt has himself been indicted, without a grant of immunity, and from comments at the hearing one gathers the impression that it is expected that he will plead guilty to a lesser included charge. … Before the new constitution, separate Orphans Courts had been established in many, but not all, counties in the Commonwealth.

J.L. ex rel. J.L. v. Ambridge Area School District

622 F. Supp. 2d 257 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2008

To withstand the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must set forth sufficient facts to establish that: (1) he is disabled as defined by the Act; (2) that he is otherwise qualified to participate in school activities … The Third Circuit has clearly held, however, that a plaintiff need not prove that defendants’ discrimination was intentional.

STRADER v. US BANK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2020

The FDCPA claims here are clearly duplicative of the ones in the 2017 case; Mr. … Strader equal protection of law, or any privileges and immunities under the law.

KONIAS v. PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2023

Additionally, “the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine … The burden is on the plaintiff “to establish he is a qualified person with a disability.” Stokes v. Ctr., No. 13-2057-GMS, 2016 WL 3344375, at *4 (D. Del. June 13, 2016) (citing Kanofsky v.

MCANULTY v. ADAMS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2023

Therefore, in this respect, his claim against Adams in her official capacity is not barred by sovereign immunity. … Even assuming that it was Kocherzat who dismissed him from his position, a fact which is not clearly alleged in the Complaint, McAnulty had no free speech right to his position.

POCHAN v. UHG I LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2024

Thus, Plaintiff alleges that the “exhibits attached to the complaint qualify as loan application documents necessitating the inclusion of a Confidential Document Form.” Id. at ¶ 31. … Feb. 8, 2024) (holding “any alleged diminution in the value of personal information cannot establish an injury in fact where it has been determined that Plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial risk of harm because

PIERRE v. BATES

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2024

A frivolous complaint is one which is either based on a meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based on factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when the factual scenario … P. 72((b)(2), and Local Rule 72(D)(2), the parties have a right to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation.

ROSARIO v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2025

Evidence in the summary judgment record clearly demonstrates that Rosario has a history of mental illness and that he has regularly required psychiatric care throughout his incarceration. … immunity.

J.R. v. GREATER LATROBE SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2023

found that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support the violation of a constitutional right under the state-created danger theory with respect to Lydic, the Court rejects Lydic’s argument that he is entitled to qualified … immunity.

JEFFERY v. ERIE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2024

; (3) was qualified for the position in question; and (4) was ultimately replaced by someone sufficiently younger so as to support an inference of discrimination. … Thus, the first prong of Plaintiff’ s prima facie case has been established.

Zakewski v. Pnc Financial Sercvices Group, Inc.

555 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2008

Here, there is clearly insufficient evidence for a prima facie claim that Defendant regarded Plaintiff as substantially impaired. … Plaintiff’s job profile encompassed work clearly significant to PNC as required to meet the second prong. See id.

Germinaro v. Fidelity National Title Insurance

107 F. Supp. 3d 439 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2015

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when the movant “ ‘clearly -establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Minnesota Lawyers Mut. … Given Nebraska’s insignificant connection to this civil action, it clearly cannot provide the controlling law.

Republic Oil Refining Co. v. Granger

98 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1951

Plaintiff first went into possession of the properties on which it established its refinery under a thirty-year lease, dated April 1, 1931, from Terminal. … At most, this matter is evidentiary and merely helps to buttress the case which the plaintiff has already established.

BOYLE v. MEYER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2021

[and] the Defendants’ failures…do not entitle them to PREP Act immunity.”) … with ECF No. 12 at 10–16 (“the Complaint clearly establishes that Plaintiffs’ claims relate to the use of covered countermeasures, such as PPE, and the implementation and administration of covered countermeasures to reduce

Cecil Township Municipal Authority v. North American Specialty Surety Co.

836 F. Supp. 2d 367 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2011

Nov. 18, 2011) (dismissing the plaintiffs punitive damages claim with prejudice inasmuch as it is well-established that a municipality is immune from such damages and amendment would therefore be futile); Cange v. … Sitarik argues that since the assignment was given as collateral security, North American received only a qualified interest “commensurate with the debt or liability secured.” (Sitarik Brief at 4, quoting Seip v.

KAUFMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2021

A court will only grant judgment on the pleadings if the moving party “clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. … Moreover, many averments in the Complaint refer only to actions of “PSP” or “Defendant PSP,” which Plaintiffs concede has immunity from suit here under the Eleventh Amendment.

Harrison v. Heiner

28 F.2d 985 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 1928

Donnally are the duly appointed, qualified, and aeting receivers of the Thomas Cronin Company, a corporation; the said receivers having been duly appointed by the court of common pleas of Allegheny county, in and for the … The actual amount of maintenance costs was not definitely established by the testimony. Judgment will be entered for the defendant.

MUNDY v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2022

In order to establish an ADA Failure to Accommodate claim, Ms. Mundy must demonstrate that she is a qualified individual with a disability. As discussed above, Ms. … Mundy must demonstrate that she is a qualified individual with a disability. As discussed above, a temporary or nonpermanent condition cannot establish substantial impairment for the purposes of the ADA.

Dumond v. Commissioner of Social Security

875 F. Supp. 2d 500 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2012

If the claimant cannot qualify under the listings, the analysis proceeds to the fourth and fifth steps. … If the claimant cannot do his past work or other work, he qualifies for benefits. 493 U.S. at 525-26 ,. 110 S.Ct. 885 .