Case law

United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.

187 F. Supp. 2d 426 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2002

No. 320, at 131-146. 8 Furthermore, the most critical point is whether ALC could meet its permit limits, and the record clearly demonstrates that it failed to do so at Vandergrift before the permanent upgrade was completed … First, we have found that the Vandergrift wastewater treatment plant was inadequate; ALC therefore does not qualify for the defense for incidents there.

Washington Energy Co. v. Century Surety Co.

407 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2005

Century contends there was no physical injury to Columbia’s or Vinsick's tangible property, but rather, these losses qualify as "property damage’’ based on the second part of the definition, i.e., "loss of use of tangible … established after it has left the manufacturing site.

Owens-El v. Robinson

442 F. Supp. 1368 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1978

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor … Testimony established that some calls are allowed, but in a rather haphazard, arbitrary and uneven manner.

McMunn ex rel. Myers v. Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc.

131 F. Supp. 3d 352 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2015

Nor are they undermined by a 2008 NIOSH report (cited below) prepared in connection with proceedings to allow former workers to qualify for benefits" based on work history at Apollo. … In addition, to establish a breach of duty, Plaintiffs must offer evidence from a qualified expert that the Apollo facility’s emissions exceeded regulatory limits. See Koester v.

ROMAN v. M & T BANK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2023

Section 1983 is the “vehicle for imposing liability against anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.’” Grammer v. John J. … Section 1983 does not create substantive rights by its own terms, but it instead provides remedies for violations of rights that are established elsewhere in the Constitution or in federal law. See Kneipp v.

In Re Martinez

73 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 1947

Naturalization is a privilege, to be given, qualified or withheld as Congress may determine, and which the alien may claim as of right only upon compliance with the terms which Congress imposes. … The applicant’s behavior is significant to the extent that it tends to establish or negative these facts. But proof of good behavior does not close the inquiry.

WARREN v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2019

In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, “the court must accept the truth of the movant’s factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record.” United States v. … In order to demonstrate a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must satisfy the two-prong test established by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Cyclops Corp. v. United States

408 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1976

The government, however, urges that the plaintiff, to qualify for the deduction, must in addition establish that the amount of such commitment can and has been determined with reasonable accuracy. … Anderson, supra, is not inflexible; . when the liability itself is clearly fixed, as in this case, other uncertainties do not necessarily destroy that initial certainty.”

Sean Patrick McDonald v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

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

(“At the administrative hearing held on March 1, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel for the first time stated that Plaintiff “also has some limited physical impairments” but that “clearly his main impairment and the reason that … (the ALJ is required to submit to the vocational expert only those limitations that are credibly established by the record”).

WALDRON v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2021

violations. 9 In the Love case, the court noted that Secretary Wetzel could not be held liable for the substantive due process claim because the defendants successfully argued that they were entitled to qualified … immunity.

GIANT EAGLE, INC. v. AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2020

While intentional conduct does not qualify as “accidental,” negligence on the part of the insured may qualify as “accidental.” Baumhammers, 938 A.2d at 291. … Discovery of this nature clearly goes beyond whether Defendants owe a duty to defend.”).

Sklenar v. Barnhart

195 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2002

It appears a necessary correlate to the rule, applicable in many contexts, that an ALJ may not rely on his or her lay opinions to the detriment of the opinions of duly qualified medical professionals. … The District Court should decline to further expound upon the types of medical evidence that in other cases may be sufficient to establish continued disability under P.L. 104-121.

Hennessey

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2026

According to the American Medical Association, CPT codes “describe medical services and procedures performed by physicians and other qualified health care professionals. … Relator’s allegations clearly demonstrate that his knowledge of direct facts is limited to his review of the private payor AASD claims.

SNYDER v. BIROS

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

The same is true here as a fair reading of the record indicates that the Bankruptcy Court expressly qualified the comments, stating that they were not final determinations and Ms. … Yet, she does not challenge any of the specific factual findings made by the Bankruptcy Court which would establish that they were clearly erroneous, i.e., completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support or bearing no

HARPER v. WINGARD

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2020

A state court decision can be contrary to clearly established federal law in one of two ways. … Here, the combination of direct and circumstantial evidence clearly established defendant's culpability to the satisfaction of the fact finder and that verdict should not be disturbed. See Commonwealth v.

FOGE, MCKEEVER LLC v. ZOETIS INC.

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

Rooney are relevant to claimed damages for breeding SG and selling her offspring; • Records of the future races (and the corresponding purse value) that SG was qualified to race in, which Plaintiffs claim SG … Additionally, while Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed to produce certain documents, Plaintiffs have clearly articulated in their Response to the instant Motion, and to the Court during the telephonic

SNYDER v. BERRYHILL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2019

Also, although the Third Circuit has held that various periods of time between a claimant’s birthday and the cutoff date for an age category can qualify as a borderline situation, it has declined to establish any precise … Upon review of the ALJ’s analysis, the Court finds that the ALJ clearly considered the facts of this particular case in determining that use of the higher age category of the Grids was inappropriate here.

LINNABARY v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2024

Some tangible harms, such as physical injuries or monetary losses, “readily qualify as concrete injuries.” Id. at 425. Intangible harms can also qualify as concrete injuries. Id. … Owed under Section 1692(e) SAS asserts that its initial Collection Letter, dated January 28, 2022, and Verification Response Email, dated April 22, 2022, both correctly and clearly

OPENPITTSBURGH.ORG v. DEFAZIO

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2021

. § 2869 impair[] clearly established rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” (ECF No. 86, ¶ 4.) … Qualified Elector.”

COOPER v. UNIVERSAL STAINLESS AND ALLOY PRODUCTS, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2025

To order a party to produce discovery that was never sought or to comply with the temporal scope of a request that has not been contested would be an "arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable" decision—or, in other … To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination, plaintiff must show that: (1) "he is a member of a protected class;" (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) "he suffered an adverse employment action