Case law

PETRO v. LUNDQUIST CONSULTING INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2022

Petro’s claims; that the Noerr- Pennington doctrine confers immunity because Lundquist was petitioning to collect money it was owed; and that Mr. … The movant will prevail, however, if it “clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains resolved and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Allegheny Technologies Incorporated v. The United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2019

The component of Medicare Part D that provides subsidies to qualifying employer-sponsored health plans through the RDS program is implemented in 42 C.F.R. §§ 423.880-.894. … In Alvarado do not themselves ‘creat[e] substantive rights,’ but ‘are simply jurisdictional provisions that operate to waive sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law.’” United States v.

POM Group Inc v. Schedule A Defendants

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2026

The Court holds that the second prerequisite of Rule 4(k)(2) has been established. … Although both Defendants are located in China, and aver that all of their operations are located in China, their website storefronts clearly target their sales to the United States.

BLAKENEY v. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 2024

The Blakeneys concede that the records otherwise qualify as business records. And it appears that they also qualify as statements made for medical diagnosis. … Indeed, Defendants very clearly have represented that they are not contesting feasibility. ECF 85, p. 4; ECF 93, p. 4.

United States v. Grape

509 F. Supp. 2d 484 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2007

Grape was able to clearly articulate to Dr. DeMier that he objected to treatment by medication. (Involuntary Medication Report, at 3.) Mr. … Sarrazin’s plan clearly contemplates as one of its goals the voluntary participation of Mr. Grape with any medication treatment. D.

BARNES v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON ADMINISTRATIVE

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

, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ..., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Thus, he has failed to establish the requisite personal involvement of any individual Defendant. To the extent that Lt.

SNIPPERT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2022

(R. 1328-31), his treating neurologist, establishes limitations in excess to those incorporated into his residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and that these additional limitations would render him disabled. … Baldwin’s statements as to the frequency and duration of Plaintiff’s migraine headaches even qualify as an opinion pursuant to the Social Security Administration’s regulations.

Alameda Produce Market, Inc. v. Air Nail Co., Inc.

348 B.R. 39 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2006

The parties agree that, for the Lis Pendens to be deemed a permissible title exception for the purposes of the Purchase Agreement, it must qualify as one of these listed exceptions. … Finally, ¶ 2 of the Settlement Agreement clearly establishes the Massmans’ right to indemnification.

In Re PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

440 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2006

or repudiation of that established doctrine). … Oil and Gas, and the precedent cited in those decisions, establish clearly that indemnification claims integrally related to the securities claims being compromised properly may be extinguished through a comprehensive bar

HOWARD v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2025

On the other, intangible harms qualify only in certain circumstances. See id. … In sum, the Howards have not established that Havens dictates the outcome in this case.

BITCO GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION v. PORT VUE PLUMBING, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2024

A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify … PVP argues that such a requirement clearly calls for a legal conclusion and is therefore justifiably objected to by PVP, since such matters need to be decided by the Court.

Three Rivers Motors Company v. Ford Motor Company

374 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1974

established that Ford desired and secured a General Release. … We concluded that a release, ‘which clearly intends to save the releasor’s rights against a past contributory infringer, does not automatically surrender those rights.’

PETRIS v. SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE, INC.

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

While tangible harms, such as physical and monetary harms, may more readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III, intangible harms can also be concrete. … consumers whose reports had been transmitted to third parties but not the others, the Supreme Court did not create such a high bar to Article III that it precludes causes of action for statutory violations where harm is: (1) clearly

Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Connellsville Area School District

127 F. Supp. 3d 283 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2015

The Establishment Clause The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, Doe v. … values protected by that Clause, just as historical acceptance of racial or gender based discrimination does not immunize such practices from scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.”).

STREICH v. COMMISSIONER, OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2020

Further, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s submissions according to well-established liberal standards applicable to pro se litigants. II. … To qualify as substantial gainful activity, for calendar year 2001 and each year thereafter, the monthly earnings must have averaged more than the greater of either $700, or an amount adjusted for wage growth. Id.

GENESS v. COUNTY OF FAYETTE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2019

We could not then determine if Detective Cox enjoyed qualified immunity.*° Detective Cox answered Mr. … Geness did not adduce evidence Detective Cox lacked probable cause, (2) Detective Cox entitled to qualified immunity, (3) Mr. Geness did not adduce evidence of a reckless investigation, (4) Mr.

STIFFLER v. APPLE INCORPORATED

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2023

Ryhal qualifies as an expert for purposes of this case. An expert must “possess specialized expertise” to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Pineda v. … Ryhal’s report could have been more thorough and could have outlined “the best methodology,” it still clearly evinces a scientific method. Mr.

ADAMS v. ROSS TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2021

And 10 Sample also invokes the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Adams also has not pointed to controlling precedent that in the focused context of the facts alleged would have shown the violation of a right that was clearly established at the time of alleged violations.

HARRISON v. OLIVER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2024

“The clearly established law” is “ ‘the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.’ ” Dennis v. … For AEDPA purposes, the Strickland test qualifies as “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” Williams [v. Taylor], 529 U.S. 362, 391 (2000)].

Pini v. First Unum Life Insurance

981 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2013

The letter explained that the limitations established by Pini were “specific to her job with her employer.” Id. at 42 . … Waheed clearly opined that Pini could perform the duties of her own occupation for a different employer. ECF No. 35-4 at 22-23. It was Dr.