Case law

CARDWELL v. ESTOCK

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

New Castle County, 970 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.4 (3d Cir. 1992)) (“‘a contention in a brief’ clearly ... may not ‘be used to ‘substitute for an allegation in a complaint.’”). … As it relates to Plaintiff’s ADA claim, under the ADA, no qualified individual with a disability may be excluded from participation in the programs of a public entity because of his disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

CARLTON v. NORWIN SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 2025

Instead, “a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances – including, for example, (i) when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function; (ii) when the government compels … Ed. 2d 373 (1966) (establishing the “public function” test for state action). However, her contention is unavailing.

DETSCHELT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2026

Detschelt further avers that Defendants qualified the Censure as being issued against him “in his capacity as a member of the Board” in an attempt to conceal that it was actually a censure of his protected speech as a … The First Amendment secures the right to express oneself, but it does not secure an immunity from the vicissitudes that come in a pluralistic society wherein people are equally free to reject others’ ideas and modes of

BLAIR v. GILMORE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2022

The Supreme Court explained that Congress intended that habeas relief for errors of law may only be granted in two situations: 1) where the state court decision was “contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law as … A state court decision can be contrary to clearly established federal law in one of two ways.

ARCONIC CORPORATION v. NOVELIS INC.

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

Arconic was clearly on notice since February 2019 that the court viewed its TS IDs as deficient. … Information need not rise to the level of a trade secret in order to qualify for protection.

KOCHKA v. WEST PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2023

An out-of- court statement is not hearsay if presented for some purpose other than to establish the truth of the matter asserted. See id. … Staller is qualified to render his opinion. See ECF No. 112-4. Likewise, Mr. Staller’s methodology is reliable. Mr.

KOSHIR v. SAUL

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

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s alleged hernias, adjustment disorder, and neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome did not qualify as severe impairments. (R. 17-19). … It is well-established that such pronouncements are not considered “medical opinions” insofar as the opinion goes to an issue “reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). See also Griffin v.

STACHE v. MID MON VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2020

Plaintiff's ADA Claim Title I of the ADA provides that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to … The contract clearly and unambiguously defines the parties’ respective roles and responsibilities.

EVANS v. WELLHEAD

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

employee has substantially the same flexibility or freedom as he would if not on call, else all or almost all on-call time would be working time, a proposition that settled case law and the administrative guidelines clearly … Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case for race discrimination, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he belongs to a racial minority, (2) he was qualified for the

GALLAGHER v. CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2024

Perry was clearly outside of the decisional process. Further, Dr. … While Gallagher clearly does not like that Dr.

HARTEL v. BEAZER EAST, INC.

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

In order to “bring a case within the [federal- question removal] statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of … And regardless of whether the Complaint is unusual because it raises fraud claims and would not “open the litigation floodgates” to similar types of cases, the Complaint clearly asserts “run-of-the-mill state tort claims

RESPIRONICS, INC. v. Invacare Corp.

511 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2007

However, because conception is the touchstone of inventorship, each joint inventor must generally contribute to the conception of the invention. 1 Conception is complete when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor … Because failure to include details regarding circuitry does not qualify as a best mode violation, we would enter summary judgment as to this defense and counterclaim in plaintiffs’ favor on this alternative ground as well

Jacobs v. CNG Transmission Corp.

332 F. Supp. 2d 759 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2004

No production wells have ever been established on the property. … If the parties’ intent is not clearly expressed, then resort to the common aids of construction is appropriate.

Burke v. Mesta MacH. Co.

79 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1948

The evidence establishes conclusively that when an employee bettered the time standard established for a job made known to him in advance, he did not receive the resultant incentive earnings as a gratuity. … While the term “any agency of the United States” is not defined in the Portal-to-Portal Act, it clearly appears from legislative definition of the term “agency” in other federal statutes and legislative reports.

NGONO v. MOSHANNON VALLEY CORRECTIONAL CENTER

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

The FTCA defines “government employees” as “employees of a federal agency,” and defines “federal agency” to include “the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the … Moreover, the record does not so clearly indicate that the Court lacks jurisdiction on any basis over Plaintiff's Pennsylvania state law claims against Defendant GEO so as to require dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.

NICHOLSON v. SHEETZ INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2020

Absent from the SAC, however, is any factual content establishing that the Defendants had a duty to disclose the omitted information. … He claims that “Defendant Sheetz Inc. failed to pay this bonus to the plaintiff which he was clearly entitled to under the terms of employment.” Id. ¶10.

Covertech Fabricating, Inc. v. TVM Building Products, Inc.

124 F. Supp. 3d 489 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2015

In order to qualify for Lanham Act protection, a mark must either be suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful, or must be descriptive with a demonstration of secondary meaning. … Thus, the Court finds that rFOIL should be classified as a suggestive mark, thereby qualifying for Lanham Act protection. With regard to commercial strength, the Court must examine marketplace recognition.

VALUE DRUG COMPANY v. ONLY ONE HUB, INC.

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

arrangement in which a physician or other qualified nonphysician practitioner would bill for the services provided by pharmacies, then provide the pharmacies with the agreed-upon reimbursement. Jd. §20. … at 570 (rejecting the traditional 12(b)(6) standard established in Conley vy. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY v. SIMONE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2021

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted where “‘the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved’ and that it is ‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” … The Policy defines an “occurrence” as an “accident.” 3 State Farm concedes that Michael Wain’s alleged injuries may qualify as “bodily injury” under the Policy.

LENZ v. BERRYHILL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2021

Full or partial remittance of the awarded attorney fees will be contingent upon a determination by the government that Plaintiff owes no qualifying, pre-existing debt(s) to the government. … It is the government’s burden to establish that its position: (1) had a reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged; (2) had a reasonable basis in law for the theory propounded; and (3) had a reasonable connection