Case law

United States v. Union Bridge Co.

143 F. 377 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1906

Indeed, the power of Congress to regulate navigation being established (Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 , 6 L. Ed. 23 ; Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713 , 18 L. … clearly, palpably, plainly, and in such manner as to leave no doubt or hesitation on our minds.” Or, as Chief Justice Marshall said in Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 126 , 3 L.

Luther v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

676 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2009

Luther showing he was qualified in terms of capital, facility requirements and customer satisfaction ability. (Def.’s App., Exhibit E, Deposition of Barbara Robinson, “Robinson Depo.,” at 59.) … Even if this document itself is not deemed to be a contract, it is comparable to the letter from Pizza Hut’s representative in that it clearly contradicts the content of the alleged oral promises.

Metcalf v. PaineWebber Inc.

886 F. Supp. 503 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1995

With respect to each reference in FAC ¶ 8 to Defendant’s “partnerships,” Plaintiff has merely added the qualifier “specifically EP-I.” This change would not cure the shortcomings of the § 1962(b) claim. … It is well established in this circuit that, in order to successfully plead a cause of action for a RICO conspiracy under § 1962(d), a plaintiff must first establish a violation of at least one of the three other subsections

Baker v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

835 F. Supp. 846 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1993

Co., 760 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir.1985), plaintiff must make out a “prima facie case” by showing that he (1) is a member of the protected class, (2) was discharged from a job (3) for which he was qualified, and (4) was replaced … However, such conduct on the part of the employer would clearly not prove that the employee was involuntarily forced into early retirement, i.e., discharged. E.E.O.C. v. Westinghouse Elec.

Zeneca Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

968 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1997

As the Supreme Court explained. however: This scheme will not work, of course, if the holder of the patent pertaining to the pioneer drug is disabled from establishing in court that there has been an act of infringement. … A party cannot expect to be absolutely immune from suit in a forum for a cause of action “arising directly” out of the defendant’s activities in that forum.

BARNES v. MEDVA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2025

Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[t]he obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings is well-established.”). … Lastly, Barnes argues that Corrections Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. ECF Nos. 149 at 4-5; 159 at 6-7.

Hartle v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp.

7 F. Supp. 3d 510 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2014

Calhoun, 350 F.3d at 322 (“An expert may be generally qualified but may lack qualifications to testify outside his area of expertise.”). … See Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 745 n. 14 (“[I]f a court finds that an expert has employed a methodology only slightly different from a methodology that the court thinks is clearly reliable, the court should be more likely to accept

United States v. Conley

859 F. Supp. 899 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1994

The Pesavento Drive affidavit indicates that a Cooperating Witness (“C.W.”) was granted immunity on April 24, 1991, has provided information to law enforcement officers and prosecutors approximately five times since April … Clause (b), in which the terms “vendor” and “establishment” are first employed, reads in part, “contracts setting forth agreements between vendors and the establishment for video poker machines.”

Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.

888 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2012

Upon review, the Court finds that the report does not establish that Marvell’s simulators practice this step. … This idea is expressed clearly in the doctrine of claim differentiation, for example. See Phillips v.

CARNEVALE v. DIGIOVANNI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2025

Evans and Smith argue in the alternative that they should be granted qualified immunity because Carnevale’s allegations are too broad to sufficiently identify the contours of the right at issue. … Evans and Smith are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. not necessarily dispositive.

BYERS v. SOUTH CONNELLSVILLE BOROUGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2020

The Club is a local social club/drinking establishment operated by the South Connellsville Volunteer Fire Department. Membership to the Club is required for entry. (Id. ¶ 12.) … immunity; and the Amended Complaint fails to allege any personal involvement by Ringer.

Courtney v. Ivanov

41 F. Supp. 3d 453 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2014

The complaint alleges that Freight-lion failed to “provide adequate services, and equipment and facilities in the form of skilled trained, experienced, qualified, and competent drivers and safe, roadworthy equipment as mandated … This language clearly creates a private right of action for injured individuals.

SKROUPA v. SHALER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2024

But the court held that the complaint “simply attempts to redefine clearly passive inaction as affirmative acts.” Id. at 178. … Dist., 12 Congress has abrogated sovereign immunity for claims under the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1403. The Court of Appeals has held that a state’s waiver of immunity by accepting federal financial assistance is valid.

JENKINS v. GIRL'S HOPE OF PITTSBURGH, INC.

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

Thus, in order to sue the United States, a plaintiff’s allegations must invoke a valid waiver of sovereign immunity. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). … App’x 169, 172 (3d Cir.2007) (“Plaintiff carries the burden of proof to establish presentment of her claim to HUD.”); Livera v.

Henderson v. Astrue

887 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2012

If the claimant cannot qualify under the listings, the analysis proceeds to the fourth and fifth steps. … RA is an autoimmune disease, which means the arthritis results from your immune system attacking your body's own tissues. No one knows what causes RA.

SPROUL v. SUNPRO SOLAR

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2023

In general, to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position in question; (3) he suffered an adverse … To establish a prima facie case for retaliation under the ADA?

NARANJO v. COULEHAN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2024

Pa. 2001) (“The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived its immunity in § 1983 civil rights cases (42 Pa. … Plaintiff claims that Deputy Secretary Ferguson is responsible for identifying inmates who will be housed in the MCU and whether and when they qualify to be released to general population. Id.

ABDULBAQI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2026

To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4)the circumstances raise … Clearly, no reasonable jury could find such an interaction to be severe harassment.

Doe v. Ward

124 F. Supp. 2d 900 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2000

“However, it is well established that courts have a duty to avoid passing upon a constitutional question if the case may be disposed of on some other ground.” Spicer v. … However, problems arose because such agreements did not clearly establish the responsibilities of the receiving states in supervision of the parolee or probationer or the rights of a sending state to request the return of

SHELTON v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2025

(b) Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Andrews v. … Scuilli, 853 F.3d 690, 705 (3d Cir. 2017) (“the right to be free from arrest except on probable cause [is] clearly established”).