Case law

STANFORD v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2023

The phrase “clearly established Federal law,” as the term is used in Section 2254(d)(1) is restricted “to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta of [the United States Supreme Court] decisions as of the time of the relevant … Thus, when a federal court reviewing a habeas petition concludes that the state court analyzed the petitioner’s claim in a manner that contravenes clearly established federal law, it then must proceed to review

United States v. Eme Homer City Generation L.P.

823 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2011

However, in this case, the Former Owners never obtained a PSD permit and no such condition was ever established. … In any event, the Title V claims against the Former Owners are clearly without merit for the simple reason that they never owned or operated the Plant during the relevant time period.

KETTREN v. VERIZON NORTH, LLC

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

To establish pretext, Mr. … Kettren fails to establish a prima facie case is intertwined (and essentially coextensive) with its argument that he fails to establish pretext.

HOWARD v. WILLIAMS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2022

As Plaintiffs fairly note: Commonality is established in this case. … First, Plaintiff’s counsel is clearly more than adequate to meet the complexities this lawsuit poses.

DEGENS v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2021

Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps. … Congress chose to provide federal employees (such as Hardy) with absolute immunity for acts within the scope of their employment. Plaintiffs' sole remedy is a Federal Tort Claims Act 7 As set forth in N'Jai v. U.S.

BRUNNER v. LITTLE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2024

Except as to Sissem, the Amended Complaint does not clearly identify which allegations and claims are being asserted against which Defendants. … As the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.

IN RE EQT CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2022

• Superiority: Defendants’ conduct damaged thousands of geographically dispersed investors, making a class action the clearly superior method for adjudicating the claims and defenses here … Feinstein’s qualifications, and, based upon a review of the record, the Court finds that he is qualified. Defendants do object to Dr.

FARROW v. PITTSBURGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2024

Plaintiff’s claim is untimely and did not state the date on the complaint, clearly the date is on the complaint.” right to sue letter. Id. … Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, was qualified for his position, and that he suffered adverse employment action. Br. in Supp. 11, ECF No. 12.

DIETRICH v. MOUNT OLIVER BOROUGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2021

P. 55(b)(2) because they clearly are not liquidated or computable. See Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1152 (3d Cir. 1990); See, also Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir.1974). … Here, Plaintiff has established that Schaaf entered his property without his permission and demolished his home.

Mosley v. City of Pittsburgh Public School District

702 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2010

In order to establish a prima facie case under the Whistleblower Law, Dr. … Clearly, Plaintiffs remarks demon *585 strate his concern and belief that he was being treated unfairly, not that a significant violation of state law was occurring. A reasonable jury could not find otherwise.

TALLEY v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 2025

But in order for ineffective assistance of counsel to qualify as “cause,” counsel’s assistance must, itself, be so ineffective as to qualify as an independent constitutional claim. Edwards v. … A state court decision can be contrary to clearly established federal law in one of two ways.

Hoots v. Pennsylvania

272 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2003

Grimm, who testified that a teacher who has taught a child throughout the year is qualified to make a recommendation of that child’s readiness and ability to handle mathematical reasoning. Tr., 5/12/03, at 97. … This is clearly evident in curriculum in place for the 2003-2004 school year. Dr. Grimm testified that new programs will provide extra support for math skills to students in the seventh and eighth grades.

Coyle Properties Limited II, LLC and Coyle Management, Inc. v. RSUI Indemnity Company, McGowan & Company, Inc., and Risk Placement Services, Inc.

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

That qualifying language undercuts RSUI’s coverage denial and warrants an immediate reversal of RSUI’s coverage position. … to establish these causes of action. 1.

Doe v. Ward

282 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2003

Establishment of market rates thus is more a matter of numbers than of beliefs or opinions. And market rates are what we are bound to find. … For a rate to qualify as being derived from the market, as the law requires, it should be based on information that has market characteristics — unbiased, mostly rational, and consisting of hard facts.

LARKINS v. BRITTAIN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2022

Section 2254(d) “preserves authority to issue the writ in cases where there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts with” clearly established Supreme Court precedent … Accordingly, the PCRA court denied relief to Larkins. 25 Clearly established federal

Boyles v. Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co.

383 F. Supp. 3d 470 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2019

The monthly benefit for a qualifying employee was 60% of monthly earnings up to a maximum benefit of $ 2,500 for no more than six *478 months. (ECF No. 94 ¶ 34; ECF No. 97 at 2-3.) … Boyles clearly uses this section to respond to some of Defendants' Concise Statement. However, to the extent the Court is unable to identify responsive facts in Mr.

DAVIS v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2025

To prevail on a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the … First, a prisoner cannot avoid full compliance with grievance procedures by merely alleging the DOC policies were not clearly explained to him. , 49 F. App'x 365, 368 (3d Cir. 2002).

United States v. Davis

235 F.R.D. 292 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2006

Clearly, the sole fact that Ra-breau was convicted in 1988, will not suffice to comply with Rule 609(b). … Flood clearly had a “legitimate expectation of privacy” in his residence which was the subject of the ASW. U.S. Const, amend. TV; *311 Katz v.

KORFF v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

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

He determined that Plaintiff’s restless leg syndrome, obesity, and prediabetes did not qualify as severe impairments. (R. 26-27). … The Court notes that the ALJ clearly took very seriously his duty to assist Plaintiff in compiling the administrative record in light of her lack of representation.

Mozingo v. Oil States Energy Servs., L. L.C.

341 F. Supp. 3d 534 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2018

"[R]emittitur is well established as a device employed when [we] find[ ] that a decision of the jury is clearly unsupported and/excessive." 134 We "may only disturb a jury verdict if 'the damages assessed by the jury [are … Primebank , 747 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2014) to support its argument "[c]omments in closing arguments regarding a party not calling a witness are clearly improper." ECF Doc. No. 496 at 19. It does not.