Case law

DUKES v. WOOD

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2022

In both cases, as Dukes is suing in his capacity as a DOC inmate, the third and fourth elements are clearly satisfied as to him. … Title II of the ADA provides that “[n]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities

LIVSEY v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2024

The court accepts the truth of the defendant’s allegations when reviewing a § 2255 motion unless those allegations are “clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record.” United States v. … Career Offender Status Fourth, Petitioner argues that “[a]t a minimum, this Court should grant re- sentencing in that Petitioner no longer qualifies as a career offender as neither

Britton v. City of Erie, Pa.

933 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1995

The Access Authority was established the following year pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Act, 53 Pa.Stat. §§ 301 et seq. … The August 4 decision of the Access Authority board clearly reduced Plaintiffs access, as well as the access of others, to that forum.

WHYTE v. STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2021

Pa. 2002) (“While his speculation is informed by his training and experience . . . , [the expert’s] opinions . . . clearly lack any identifiable methodology which defendants could challenge.”); Westfield Ins. v. … This case is more like Pavlik, as the record does not establish that Mr. Whyte knew that his “precise injury” could result.

Neidigh v. Select Specialty Hospital-McKeesport

150 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2015

The record establishes that a complaint was' made regarding Plaintiffs behavior while Plaintiff happened to be absent from, the workplace. … When viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party, the first and second elements are clearly satisfied.

BINGHAM

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

[T]he term “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability” includes . . . . not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual … The Court finds that there is no 25 In context, Plaintiff’s statement that he was “not a cook” was clearly not “notice of his [claimed] existing accommodation”.

Armour v. Gradler

448 F. Supp. 741 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1978

Aside from allegations of the intentional scuttling of the KAMAI, the evidence clearly shows that Armour and Gradler left Presque Isle Marina with the sole intent of fishing in Lake Erie. Mrs. … Thus, testimony at trial could not qualify Armour as one employed in the ship’s service or performing ship’s work.

VAIL v. KING S.R.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 2025

persons who are proceeding in forma pauperis and to dismiss, at any time, any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Thus, under §1915(e)(2)(B), courts are “authorized to dismiss a claim as frivolous where ‘it is based on an indisputable meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” O’Neal v.

CALVIN v. SCOTT TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2024

Routine traffic stops do not qualify as a custodial setting for the purposes of Miranda protections. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-41 (1984). … more persons in any State or Territory conspire . . . for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities

HILEMAN v. WEST PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2025

Hileman must establish that (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) she is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment … Employees seeking FMLA qualified leave must provide adequate notice to their employers. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302. Formal written notice is not required, but it is well established that employers must be given some notice.

LAYMON v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

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

First, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show by that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) defendant took an adverse employment action against … case as established for these purposes.

United States v. Smith

101 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 2000

The government further asserts there was no miscarriage of justice that would qualify petitioner for relief in this Court, and that Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is inapplicable as that section only permits … If a nonfrivolous claim clearly fails to demonstrate either deficiency of counsel’s performance or prejudice to the defendant, then the claim does not merit a hearing.

Johnston v. University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education

97 F. Supp. 3d 657 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2015

, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.’” … Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly establish a claim for retaliation.

Estate of Palumbo v. United States

788 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2011

Statutory Construction Because the parties concede the material facts referenced above are not contested, the sole issue before this Court is whether the sum of $11,721,141.00 qualifies as a charitable deduction under Section … Welfare, 545 Pa. 27 , 679 A.2d 767 , 772 n. 3 (1996) (“Some of the evidence referred to is clearly outside the scope of inquiry permitted when it is necessary to go beyond the four corners of the trust instrument.”); Estate

Moore v. DARLINGTON TWP.

690 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2010

Furthermore, the “right to vote is personal,” and signing or refusing to sign a candidate’s petition is clearly related to the exercise of that right, which a citizen undertakes in his personal capacity. … Within'that claim, Plaintiff also mentions potential violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution, but since § 1983 protects only the "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States

Evans v. SS Kresge Company

394 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1975

The Court held that the allegations clearly established a group boycott which interfered with the “natural flow” of an appreciable amount of interstate commerce. … The district court dismissed the action on the ground that the United States was immune from suit.

KEHL v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY

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

Defendants “create[ed], form[ed], and implement[ed]” the County’s COVID-19 vaccine policy “intentionally to deprive, religious rights, equal protections under the law and procedural due process, in addition to violating clearly … establish [sic] law.”

MADER v. UNION TOWNSHIP

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

XVIII (§ 1983), with prejudice and without leave to amend on the grounds of qualified immunity. … The Maders had the benefit of the Court’s lengthy opinion on their Second Amended Complaint when crafting their Third Amended Complaint, and the Court also clearly instructed them that their Third Amended Complaint should

LabMD, Inc. v. Tiversa Holding Corp. formerly known as Tiversa, Inc. and Robert J. Boback

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2026

Daugherty claims that, because these statements were directed to these medical professionals, “LabMD will have to spend even more time and money attempting to rehabilitate its reputation so that it can attract qualified … The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that the evidence fails to support one or more essential elements of the non-moving party’s claim, while the non-movant must establish the existence of each element

NIXON v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2020

“[T]he court must accept the truth of the movant’s factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record.” Id. at 545. … Nixon also failed to establish actual prejudice. Nixon relies on Mathis to argue that the elements of 35 Pa. Cons.