Case law

Pontius v. Children's Hospital

552 F. Supp. 1352 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1982

Kiesewetter, M.D., Chief of Surgical Services at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, conducted a search for a qualified cardiovascular surgeon to do cardiac surgery on a full time basis. … The district court conducted a trial and found that while the state bar association was immune from the liability under the state action exemption of Parker v.

Lindsley Ex Rel. Kolodziejczack v. Girard School District

213 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2002

Judgment will only be granted if it is clearly established that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant is entitled to *528 judgment as a matter of law. Regalbuto v. … To establish a violation of the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiff must establish that: (1) she was disabled as defined by the Act; (2) she was otherwise qualified to participate in school activities; (3) the school or board of

EAKIN v. BOROUGH OF POLK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2020

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has clearly held that “the Fourth Amendment is not violated when an otherwise-valid arrest is secured in contravention of a state law regulating the intrastate rules of municipal … As Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to prove any violation of his Constitutional rights, the Court need not address Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments at this time.

Cummings v. Colvin

129 F. Supp. 3d 209 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2015

In fact, the ALJ’s RFC assessment generously accounted for the limitations credibly established by the evidence of record. … Not only that, but the ALJ added that there was no evidence to the contrary — even though there very clearly was. Id. at 27 .

United States v. Jones

572 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2008

Hodge, 246 F.3d 301, 305 (3d Cir.2001). 16. 5 [E]vidence obtained by state officers during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant’s immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures … However, as will be explored in the conclusions of law, this questioning qualifies as custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda v.

BORGHESE LANE, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2023

Mancini’s opinion, “Clearly, he had no cause for great alarm,” will be excluded. … A witness may be qualified to serve as an expert in one discipline, but not in another. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999).

Thomas v. Kaufmann's

436 F. Supp. 293 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 1977

THE CONTENTIONS The Plaintiff sought to establish that the whole affair was engineered to punish her for her union organizing activities and to bring about her discharge. … The Defendant admits that the privilege is a qualified one and can be lost if the Defendant acted maliciously.

Great Northern Insurance v. ADT Security Services, Inc.

517 F. Supp. 2d 723 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2007

“A course of dealing between the parties and any usage of trade in the vocation or trade in which they are engaged or of which they are or should be aware give particular meaning to and supplement and qualify terms of an … Browning Mfg., the limiting provisions in those cases were clearly not provided at the time of performance. See, Rubin v.

Hubbell v. World Kitchen, LLC

688 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2010

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff need only show that: (1) he or she was a member of a statutorily-protected class; (2) he or she was qualified for the position; (3) he or she was aggrieved … Because the Supreme Court has made that clear, a plaintiff’s need to prove the existence of trait-based discrimination is clearly established in all circuits.

Weis-Buy Services, Inc. v. Paglia

307 F. Supp. 2d 682 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2004

Weis-Buy and Brigiotta’s claims were determined to be qualified valid PACA claim by the Bankruptcy Court, and each received a partial distribution from United Fruit’s remaining assets. {Id. at 19-20.) … Once the date for *691 payment on the invoices passed, clearly United Fruit was in breach of contract. On those same dates, United Fruit violated PACA.

EDWARDS v. ENNIS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2025

He does not clearly state the nature of the charge or whether or how it relates to the May 2 cell search or his 2015 lawsuit against Ellis. Jd. … Thus, his claim is entirely retrospective and, as such, not a viable claim for injunctive and declarative relief that escapes Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Fuller Co. v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee

421 F. Supp. 938 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1976

If it is established that such a usage is embodied in a written trade code or similar writing the interpretation of the writing is for the court. … The reasonable relationship requirement thus qualifies the general approval of choice of law provisions in Pennsylvania. 16 .

HOLLOWAY v. IRWIN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2024

A frivolous complaint is one which is either based on an indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when … Holloway does not separate his claims into counts or otherwise clearly identify his claims.

Knuth v. Erie-Crawford Dairy Cooperative Ass'n

326 F. Supp. 48 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1971

As is not unusual, no Pennsylvania decisions clearly rule the issue raised by the facts in this case. … While there was testimony that the price adjustment problem was presented to one or more annual membership meetings, it was never clearly established in which year or years this was done.

Flores

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2026

who are proceeding in forma pauperis and to dismiss any action that is (i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Flores are clearly not applicable to her claims in this case as they address exclusion of individuals and entities from participating in Medicare and state health care; programs establishing and implementing a fraud and

Siegel v. Salisbury

379 F. Supp. 317 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1974

It is an establishment engaged in selling of books, paperback books, magazines and other publications and materials. … If there are no pending prosecutions and only declaratory relief is sought, then Steffel clearly controls and no Younger showing need be made.”

Crucible, Inc. v. Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB

701 F. Supp. 1157 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1988

The court noted that patent acquisitions are not immune from the antitrust laws. Id. at 1205 . … It is established that those in the art were unable to achieve a sufficient degree of dimensional stability to cope with the out-of-roundness problem inherent in hobs.

Hudak v. Times Pub. Co., Inc.

534 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2008

The privilege, however, is a qualified one, and may be overcome by a showing that the defendant overly embellished or made exaggerated additions to an account of a proceeding. … Once the existence of a privileged occasion is established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish an abuse of that privilege. Id. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8343(a)(7).

Robinson v. Magovern

521 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1981

It is very difficult once they are established to break through them and establish yourself on your own. … These young surgeons assist the established surgeon during operations, provide coverage for patients when the established surgeon is not available, and perform surgery on the overflow of patients whom the established surgeon

Harbison v. Lewellyn

26 F.2d 126 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1928

At the time of payment, as was *129 established by direct testimony, the corporation had no 1917 earnings with which to pay the dividends. … This immunity from tax led to certain difficulties. Dividends were declared from profits accumulated prior to March 1, 1913, not from large current earnings, and the government secured no taxes upon them.