Case law

THOMAS 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”).

Boll v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

255 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2003

Therefore, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the plaintiffs must establish that the Corps owes them a non-discretionary duty. … However, the Supreme Court has clearly held that this presumption is reversed where an agency has decided not to act. In Heckler v.

W. D. Rubright Co. v. International Harvester Co.

358 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 10, 1973

Clearly, interest can be granted under subsections (a) and (b) of § 156 set forth above only when the sum due is established or is ascertainable with some degree of mathematical certainty. … The Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory reports do not qualify as business records because they were prepared specially for trial.

Miller v. Mellon Long Term Disability Plan

721 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2010

Therefore, CBC was clearly a fiduciary to the Plan. … The Insurance Defendants clearly are not the Plan.

Carmichaels Arbors Associates v. United States Ex Rel. Department of Housing & Urban Development

789 F. Supp. 683 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1992

Quite the contrary, Carmichaels Arbors readily accepts that the overall limitation provision “limits, qualifies, and works with the formula method,” but insists that once having elected the formula method, HUD is not free … The Rainier View court held that the statute clearly requires that HUD make an election between a market survey approach or a formula approach to determining rental adjustments. Id. at 991 .

Ilori v. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

742 F. Supp. 2d 734 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2010

This conduct is considered an informal complaint to management and would qualify as protected activity on its own. See Curay-Cramer v. … Encouragement to resign Brush’s statements to plaintiff in July 2004 do not qualify as adverse employment actions.

General Nutrition Corp. v. Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP

727 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2010

Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc., 815 F.2d 943, 945-46 (3d Cir.1987) (reversing district court’s conclusion that sister corporations should be treated as single entity to claim workers’ compensation immunity). … Lindquist & Vennum, 34 F.3d 453, 455-56 (7th Cir.1994), is clearly distinguishable because the plaintiff corporation had actually paid the $2.6 million rental expense at issue in that case. 9 .

KEDDAL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2026

Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494, 502 (3d Cir. 1997) (“Unlike a plaintiff in an ADA discrimination case, a plaintiff in an ADA retaliation case need not establish that he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’”). … Keddal does not establish that he suffered an adverse action, because he was not qualified under the ADA; and thus, termination does not constitute an adverse action. (Id.).

Pittsburgh Terminal Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.

509 F. Supp. 1002 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1981

The offerees had neither purchased nor sold any of the offered shares and the court determined that the rule had been clearly stated in Birnbaum v. … Eight of the Indenture. (13) Plaintiffs failed to establish that director Milton S.

DEPACE v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2021

However, the record demonstrates that Defendant clearly did not permit Plaintiff to return to work as a Machinist, which in and of itself satisfies this prong of the test. … Tissenbaum’s IME report clearly states that Plaintiff is unable to return to work as a Machinist. See Dr. Tissenbaum’s Report (ECF No. 80-3) at 13.

Brunwasser v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

541 F. Supp. 1338 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1982

Such an interpretation of this language would severely undercut the remedial framework established by this statute. … Therefore, this statutory claim, by itself, is insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction in this matter.

Kotakis v. Wesco Distribution, Inc.

650 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2009

Kotakis for the position over several qualified male candidates. On March 16, 2007, Ms. Kotakis accepted WESCO’s offer of at-will employment as a National Account Manager reporting to Mr. Hersberger. … Kotakis cannot establish a causal relationship between her complaints at Grainger and her termination from WESCO. *444 To establish a case of retaliation under Title VII, Ms.

United States v. Conley

856 F. Supp. 1010 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1994

Clearly, the magistrate has to assume that *1028 the underlying conduct occurred some time, perhaps a substantial time, before the date of conviction. … Open areas outside of the curtilage of the house are not included within the Fourth Amendment’s coverage because such areas do not qualify as persons, houses, papers or effects.

KLINGENSMITH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2025

‘In most instances, official capacity claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Klingensmith has clearly alleged that Judge Krieger’s conduct, in relation to the docket entry, was performed in his judicial capacity and he cannot allege that he suffered any harm from the docket sheet clerical error

MARTINEZ v. CREANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2024

As such, courts are afforded authority to dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id.; Denton v. … Humphrey, and Judge Creany is entitled to judicial immunity. Accordingly, Plaintiff also fails to state a claim against Judge Creany in this action.

Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. North River Insurance

73 F. Supp. 3d 544 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2014

Good cause is “established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity.” Publicker Industries, 733 F.2d at 1071 . … Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of establishing that the materials in catego- *582 ríes (i) and (ii) consist of the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure of it will work a clearly defined

OWUSU ANSAGH v. UPMC MEDICAL CENTER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2025

, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.” … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff must be able to establish that her or she (1) has a disability, (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) has suffered

HUMPHREY v. PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2024

with timing to establish a causal link. … The Court previously held that his state law claim was barred by Pennsylvania’s broad sovereign immunity statute. ECF No. 38 at 26 (citing Hill v. Barnacle, 655 F. App’x 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) and 1 Pa. C.S. § 2310).

Shipley v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co.

83 F. Supp. 722 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1949

The plaintiffs contend that the language of the two contracts, more particularly Articles 11(a) and 11(c), clearly establishes that in coupling air hose plaintiffs were working outside of their regular assigned duties, and … The additional day principle or custom was established prior to 1928.

MCINTOSH v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2024

Further, all participants confirmed that they have been trained and are qualified in the use of force. … To this end, Pennsylvania’s sovereign immunity statute affords broad immunity to state officials from state-law tort claims.