Case law

KONIAS v. DRUSKIN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2021

See 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (“no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities by a public entity … A defendant bears the burden of establishing that a plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Gould Elecs. Inc. v.

DAVIS v. NATIONAL HME

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2023

It has clearly been established that under the ADA, “[rJequesting an accommodation on account of one’s disability is a protected activity.” Schirnhofer v. … While a plaintiff does not need to establish that he or she is a qualified, disabled individual to establish a claim of retaliation under the ADA, see Krouse, 126 F.3d at 502, the plaintiff must have requested the accommodation

STEPHENS v. NEIL R. STEPHENS PRINCIPLE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2024

As the party commencing an action in federal court, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. … AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015) (“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party asserting its existence.”).

Bowles v. Ward

65 F. Supp. 880 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1946

The lack of willfullness or the failure to take practicable precautions does not afford complete immunity to the violation, since innocent nonconformity with the Price Control Act is as inflationary and as damaging to competitors … The conduct of the defendants clearly indicates that their actions were not willful but, in straining the imaginative powers of the Court, I cannot reason how it could be construed that practicable precautions were taken

AIKENS v. JEFFERSON COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2019

Plaintiff responds in kind and states she clearly has pointed to a Constitutionally defective policy. (Plaintiff’s Response at 6–8.) … C.S. § 8322; see also id. § 8324 (establishing right of contribution).

JL Ex Rel. JL v. AMBRIDGE AREA SCHOOL DIST.

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.

Dr. Gertrude A. Barber Center, Inc. v. Peters Township

273 F. Supp. 2d 643 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2003

Holly Marra has been the Qualified Mental Retardation Professional (“QMRP”) responsible for the Fawn Valley home since January of 2000. Tr. 11/20/02 at 200-201, 218. Ms. … Courts have clearly held that a person or company in the business of providing housing for handicapped persons that has been prevented from doing so due to alleged discrimination, has standing to sue under the FHA.

GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY v. ALICEA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2019

Alicea’s biological granddaughter, clearly qualifies as a relative. The Court will assume that Ms. Pierce, as Ms. Alicea’s daughter-in-law, is also a relative under the Stacked UIM Policy. … If this proposition is not conclusively established under Pennsylvania law, it is clearly what jurists in the Commonwealth believe the law to be.

Rogan v. Giant Eagle, Inc.

113 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2000

We have previously considered the intake questionnaire to establish the date of Ms. … Although the complaint does not establish a specific date when she was not awarded the position, in her EEOC charge Ms.

Gonzalez v. Corning

317 F.R.D. 443 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2016

But see COL 74(b), 173 (discussing plaintiffs’ failure to establish that Owens Coming’s limited shingle warranties qualify as affirmative representations about the useful life of Oakridge-brand shingles). … This is presumably a reference to the requirement that class members establish the presence of “any cracking, degranulation, fragmentation, or deterioration” in order to qualify as a member of the proposed four-state class

TAYLOR v. CHESMER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2020

Additionally, Congress has not expressly abrogated Pennsylvania’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from civil rights suits for damages. … In any event, to plead a cause of action under Ex parte Young, a plaintiff must establish a present violation of federal law. See, e.g., □□□ Papasan y.

Ross v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

411 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2006

Accordingly, the Lowes clearly released Prudential from any claims “based on,” “connected with,” “arising out of,” “or related to, in whole or in part” their two Class Policies. … Accordingly, plaintiff Ross’s claims do not qualify for the “independently arising” exception.

VALLECORSA v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 2022

Vallecorsa’s Section 1983 claim, the County’s qualified- immunity defense for the individual defendants, or Ms. Vallecorsa’s Monell claim. See Startzell v. … (“[B]ecause the Court concludes there has been no constitutional violation, it need not reach the arguments pertaining to qualified immunity, municipal liability, or supervisory liability.”).

Pennsylvania Bank & Trust Co. v. United States

451 F. Supp. 1296 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 1978

Brice established a trust for the benefit of his wife, Ethel S. Brice. Under the trust, the decedent was given “the right during her life to consume or appoint by Will . the entire principal of this Trust.” In 1964, Dr. … adopted, the payment of estate taxes could be avoided in cases, such as the instant estate, where a marital deduction is granted to the donor spouse’s estate and then the surviving spouse dies incompetent. 9 10This was clearly

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Schmidt

307 F. Supp. 2d 674 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2004

“Generally, courts must give plain meaning to a clear and unambiguous contract provision unless to do so would be contrary to a clearly expressed public policy.” Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. … control or compel the coverages with which her husband chose to insure the motorcycle; and (3) that she paid premiums for the coverage she is attempting to recover from for her injuries. 8 All three arguments fail under the established

Geneva College v. Sebelius

941 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2013

Holder, 766 F.Supp.2d 16, 43 (D.D.C.2011) (acknowledging that, in the context of the ACA, “the Government clearly has a compelling interest in safeguarding the public health by regulating the health care and insurance markets … Third, SHLC itself even qualifies to be excused from providing any kind of health insurance insofar as it is defined as a small employer under the ACA. See 42 U.S.C. § 18024 (b)(2).

PINKNEY v. MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2021

“Consequently, the police offered Shaw immunity from prosecution, in exchange for Happel identifying the assailant.” Id, Shaw declined this offer of immunity and instead hired a local attorney. Id., 42. … To establish a tight to relief under Title VI, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she is (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified for the educational benefit or program at issue; (3) suffered an adverse action

Etten v. Lovell Mfg. Co.

121 F. Supp. 291 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1954

Etten under date of July 31, 1946 (Defendants’ Exhibit W-22), excepting that the exact date of the execution of the lost assignment as established by evidence subsequently- taken was September 22, 1943. 11. … The R.S. § 4915 action, therefore, was properly instituted by a qualified applicant and the Court did not lose jurisdiction by the assignment of the legal title to the Chamberlain Corporation.

NVR, Inc. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co.

371 F. Supp. 3d 233 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2019

Neither party disputes that NVR qualifies as an "insured" under the Policy. (NVR CSF ¶ 12). … This is clearly a case in which the insurance companies, if given an opportunity for early control over the litigation, might have chosen a difference strategy to resolve the case.").

Shaffer v. Fayette County of Pennsylvania

163 F. Supp. 3d 280 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2016

This court previously observed that “there must be a sufficient causal connection between the allegedly stigmatizing statements, and the loss of the constitutionally protected right or status in order to qualify for relief … by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal