Case law

DIGIACOBBE v. BROTHERS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2025

But when a complaint omits facts that, if they existed, would clearly dominate the case, it seems fair to assume that those facts do not exist. Or, as the Supreme Court more recently stated in Ashcroft v. … New Jersey Department of Corrections, supra, 806 F.3d at 223 (3d Cir. 2015): [T]o establish a claim against a policymaker under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege and prove that the official established

Pino v. Hawley

480 F. Supp. 2d 818 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2007

Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 18 , 113 S.Ct. 1898 , 123 L.Ed.2d 572 (1993) (“As we have noted previously in construing statutes, the use of such a ‘notwithstanding’ clause clearly signals the drafter’s intention that the … The Act establishes hands-on, full-time federal control over aviation security through the creation of the Transportation Security Administration.

Bowles v. Sago

65 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1946

The plaintiff is the duly appointed and qualified Administrator of the Office of Price Administration. 2. … That the facts and circumstances produced at the time of the hearing of the civil action clearly establish that the acts of the defendants were not willful but were the result of failure to exercise practicable precautions

SIEHL v. CITY OF JOHNSTOWN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2022

The relevant policy language includes GL coverage for liability for “damages” because of “bodily injury” caused by an “occurrence” or “personal injury” caused by a qualifying offense. … App’x 150, 154-55 (3d Cir. 2015) (prosecutors are not immune for claims that they withheld exculpatory evidence in connection with post-conviction proceedings)). 6 See ECF No. 227 (“[T[he Court disagrees that there was

Warrick v. Snider

2 F. Supp. 2d 720 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1997

While what precisely constitutes a “penalty” has not been clearly articulated, guidelines do exist. For example, in Dunn v. … (E) Employment Training Access to employment training does not, I believe, qualify as a “basic life necessity.”

PROVITT v. SERGEANT TANNER

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

The record is devoid of any evidence to establish that there was any denial or delay in medical treatment for “non-medical factors.” See Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 68-69 (3d Cir. 1993). … None of the nine enumerated exceptions to the statutory grant of sovereign immunity apply in this case. Therefore, for Mr.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Altmeyer's Home Stores, Inc.

698 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1988

In an ADEA case, the initial burden is clearly upon the plaintiff to establish that the violation was indeed willful. … Importantly, the Court outlined the differences in the remedial provisions of both statutes: “moreover, Section 16(b) of FLSA, which makes the award of liquidated damages mandatory is significantly qualified in A.D.E.A.,

Pennenvironment v. RRI Energy Northeast Management Co.

744 F. Supp. 2d 466 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2010

Although RRI argues that “Courts have uniformly held that filing of an administrative consent order qualifies as the sort of administrative action that bars a citizen suit,” see Def. … Moreover, it is the plaintiffs burden to establish these elements. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 .

Titus v. Shearer

498 B.R. 508 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2013

After considering the state court rulings, the bankruptcy court found them to be clearly erroneous and declined to apply them as the law of the case. Titus, 467 B.R. at 610 . … Shaw (In re Shaw), 294 B.R. 652, 655 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2003) (“ ‘Certain goods [or services] may not qualify as necessities and [they] still [will] not be luxuries’” (quoting Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v.

DILLEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2026

Accordingly, “[t]o state a claim for relief in an action brought under § 1983, [a plaintiff] must establish that [he was] deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged … Dec. 12, 2017) (describing the “functional analysis” courts engage in to determine whether prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity, and the three-factor test for sovereign immunity laid out by the Third Circuit in

MOLSON v. WHITE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2021

A claim is frivolous if it: (1) is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory and/or, (2) contains factual contentions that are clearly baseless. Neitzke v. … Although Plaintiff did not sue Jason Marcy in the 2020 Case, she clearly could have done so, as she identified him by name in her prior complaint.

Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc.

251 F. Supp. 3d 908 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2017

Pa. 2001); Dismissal is proper under Rule 12(b)(1)-only when “the claim clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or.. .is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” … Regarding MetLife, the disability benefits that Ford challenges do not qualify as a public accommodation and thus do not fall within the rubric of Title III.

Fram v. Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh

380 F. Supp. 1314 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1974

This statement undoubtedly annoys plaintiff but it clearly does not harbor a meaning which would be capable of slandering Fram. … Fram’s activities qualify him as a public figure under Gertz . The plaintiff's activities prior to Armstrong’s interview show his complete and enthusiastic involvement in the taxicab controversy.

United States v. Conley

859 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1994

A successful player in such an establishment is paid a quarter for each “credit” accumulated on the machine. … The Kirsopp Avenue affidavit clearly sets forth C.W.’s basis of knowledge — active participation over a long period in the crime detailed in the Kirsopp Avenue affidavit.

MCLAUGHLIN v. THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 249

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2023

When a Rule 12(c) motion is not used to raise Rule 12(b) defenses, judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is not appropriate ““unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved … (/d.). 13 McLaughlin’s allegation that “less qualified and/or significantly younger individuals” were hired in his stead will suffice for purposes of establishing his prima facie case.

Lewis v. Ford Motor Co.

263 F.R.D. 252 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2009

Plaintiffs have not correctly stated the elements to be proven to establish a violation of the Consumer Protection Law because they omit any reference to establishing justifiable reliance by the members of the class on Defendant … The court will particularly consider whether the “attorneys for the class representatives are experienced and qualified to prosecute the claims on behalf of the entire class.” Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 55 .

TUCCI v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

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

Tucci leave to amend to add additional details that would establish Gilead as an employer under the Whistleblower Law. ECF 30, p. 1. Mr. … (citing Grim, 2019 WL 358520 at *4)). 576 (drawing a “different conclusion” from Cohen and concluding the Whistleblower “Law clearly indicates that it is intended to be applied to bodies that receive not

Sharp v. Artifex, Ltd.

110 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1999

In sum, we hold that the first requirement for maintaining a claim of negligence per se has been established. … The particular factors of section 286 of the Restatement of Torts have also been established.

FRANC v. MOODY'S ANALYTICS, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2024

To establish a prima facie case for age discrimination under the ADEA and the PHRA, Franc must demonstrate that: (1) he is 40 or older; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action … The record evidence clearly establishes that he was terminated because of his failure to respond to the mandatory vaccination surveys. In Ms. Sutton’s November 17, 2021 email, she informed Mr.

Peerless Insurance v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School

19 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2014

Co. of Pa., 926 A.2d 977, 982 (Pa.Super.Ct.2007)), that would arguably qualify as a “loss.” It follows that this is not a case analogous to Republic W. Ins. Co. v. … While the Underlying Complaint does ask for "restitution” of funds it claims PA Cyber was not entitled to, it also clearly demands damages and interest, which would qualify as a "loss” under the Policy.