Case law

LANKFORD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2025

In applying § 2254(d)(1), this Court’s first task is to ascertain what law falls within the scope of the “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)( … Once the “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” is ascertained, this Court must determine whether the Superior Court’s adjudication of the claim at issue was “contrary

North American Communications, Inc. v. InfoPrint Solutions Co.

817 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2011

The above-quoted clauses of the Customer Agreement are very clearly and thoroughly limited in their scope. The warranty as to the Machines is a two year warranty to repair or replace. … The contract between Plaintiff and Defendant IBM Credit qualifies as a finance lease. 8 However, even where a *637 lease does not qualify as a finance lease under the U.C.C., parties to a contract may exclude or modify implied

ORBITAL ENGINEERING, INC. v. BUCHKO

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2022

See Thaw Report at 5 (willful misconduct requires “some clear evidence of the actor’s malice, other intent to cause harm, or intentional disregard of a clearly-established duty.”) (ECF No. 273 Ex. 1.) … Price misconstrued Buchko’s role as COO,6 and that Buchko’s level of familiarity with cybersecurity matters is not informative of whether he disregarded a clearly established duty to Orbital, are admissible.

DENNISON v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2022

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie gender discrimination case by showing: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) this … A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of age discrimination by pointing to evidence that: (1) she is at least forty years old; (2) she was qualified for the position in question; (3) she suffered an adverse employment

DAVIS v. THE ALBERT M. HIGLEY COMPANY, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2025

Nelson, 346 Mont. 366, 195 P.3d 826, 833 (2008)), “[w]hen a qualifying patient uses medical marijuana in accordance with the MMA, he is receiving lawful medical treatment. … In concluding, Defendant maintains that “[t]he statutory language clearly provides that the use of medical marijuana – whether or not legally permissible in Pennsylvania – does not entitle Plaintiff to accommodation or

KONIAS v. PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2021

A defendant bears the burden of establishing that a plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Gould Elecs. Inc. v. … Additionally, “the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine

ORBITAL ENGINEERING, INC. v. BUCHKO

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

As such, they enjoy a qualified immunity only.” Pelagatti v. Cohen, 536 A.2d 1337, 1344 (Pa. Super. 1987), appeal denied, 548 A.2d 256 (Pa. 1988). … Clearly, the parties were in engaged in a dispute preparatory to litigation, which quickly ensued afterward.

WALKER v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2020

The elements Plaintiff will be required to prove to prevail at trial are well-established. … While the parties do not generally debate Plaintiff’s status as a qualifying individual with a disability due to her epilepsy and asthma conditions, they clearly contest whether such ailments required her to call off work

HARRINGTON v. UPMC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2022

Similarly, as pled in the Amended Complaint, Defendants merely possessed Harrington’s “unconfirmed positive” drug test result that included the express qualifiers that such result is ‘to be used only for medical purposes … New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency, a qualified immunity case, found “no consensus of authority that temporarily removing a child . . .

EL v. MATSON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2023

Shaikh, 959 F.3d 578, 584 (3d Cir. 2020) (misleading or deceptive instructions from a prison official, as well as clearly erroneous statements, can render a grievance process unavailable). … “Furthermore, while there is statutory abrogation of immunity of individual employees for intentional torts, it does not remove the immunity of the local agency.”8 Weaver v. Franklin Cnty. 918 A.2d 194, 200 (Pa.

MULTIPLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2025

“[A] broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert.” (citation omitted). … This methodology is spelled out clearly in Mr. Poret’s report. ECF 260-4, pp. 20-35. Mr. Poret’s “opinion evidence . . . is [therefore] connected to existing data . . .

DIXIE v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

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

Thus, dismissal of a claim as frivolous is proper “where it depends on an indisputably meritless legal theory or a clearly baseless or fantastic or delusional factual scenario.” Dooley v. … Feb. 28, 2025); Hall, 2025 WL 1042339, at *5 (“[TJhe Federal Reserve Act was created to establish and govern the Federal Reserve System of the United States.

Savko v. Port Authority of Allegheny County

800 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1992

Instead, plaintiff claims, a male supervisor bypassed her for a less qualified male, defendant Larry Lutheran. … Applicable Law Prior to the 1991 Act At the time that plaintiff filed this lawsuit, Title VII case law clearly prohibited the sort of psychic damages sought by plaintiff.

Hayes v. ERIE COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH

804 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2011

Additionally, she clearly stated that she does not want to return to the care of her mother. … In her letter, Baldwin represented that “Brittany is thriving in the home of Lisa Iarussi and she clearly states that this is where she wishes to remain.” (Defs.’ 6 [78] at p. 5.)

DAVIDSON v. QUINTANA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2020

Because the BOP has said so, loudly and clearly. … Davidson would qualify for relief under the “non- terminal” illness option, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

POWER v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

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

At a Daubert hearing, the burden of proof is on the proponent of the expert testimony to establish the admissibility of that testimony by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Paoli R.R. … His professional training and experience, though perhaps not uniquely tailored to the facts at issue here, clearly render him helpful to a layperson trying to understand how and why this explosion happened and what could

NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. BRIMAR TRANSIT, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2020

Judgment on the pleadings will be granted only if “the movant clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. … challenged the improper tending of the garden from which the weeds of Walls' misconduct grew, but it is clearly the latter which arose from the former.

SNYDER v. BIROS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2023

The statute provides: Any establishment that has as its only regular employees the owner thereof or the parent, spouse, child, or other member of the immediate family of such owner shall not be considered to be an enterprise … Accordingly, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Bankruptcy Court’s finding was clearly erroneous.

Gillott v. Powerex, Inc.

904 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1995

the FLSA are clear: to be paid on a salaried basis, an employee must be paid a sum “which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed” unless the deductions clearly … employer’s policy, such as an employer’s disciplinary policy that may result in suspension and consequent pay reduction for an infraction that is not a safety violation of major significance, then the employee does not qualify

WILLIAMS v. NYBERG

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2022

Plaintiff first asserts that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is clearly erroneous and contrary to law. … For purposes of establishing a substantive due process claim, Plaintiff has not pled facts to establish the deprivation of a fundamental right or interest, nor has he alleged conduct on the part of any Defendant that was