Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,938 results
0.83s
CASTAGNA v. WEST MIFFLIN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2020
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that reasonable fact finders could clearly differ in their conclusions as to factual matters material to assessment of Defendant’s liability under Plaintiff’s causes of action … show that the conduct complained of was committed by persons acting under color of state law and violated a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSYPHERD ENTERPRISES, INC. v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2019
“It is well-established that three elements are necessary to plead a cause of action for breach of contract: (1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of the contract, and (3) resultant … As such, in the present case, the surface water penetrating into the building from the back wall as a result of the water main break qualifies as surface water, for which damage coverage is excluded under g(1).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2025
According to AMP management and other employees, Plaintiff was qualified for his job and performed it well. (ECF No. 40 at 20 ¶ 11). … To establish a prima facie case for discriminatory discharge, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for an employment position; (3) and he was discharged from that position
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2025
Evidence of functioning in such a setting does not establish what a claimant is able to do in the context of a sustained, full-time, competitive work environment.” … Rather, the evidence here surmounted that fairly-low threshold and, particularly with any doubts to be resolved in Plaintiff’s favor, his claim of disabling impairment is patently not “clearly groundless.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownWHETSTONE v. FRALEY AND SCHILLING TRUCKING COMPANY
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 1, 2021
Applying the totality of the circumstances factors, the Court finds that the Resignation from Employment Agreement clearly and specifically identified claims under the ADA and “any other claims that may arise from” the … To establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must present evidence that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he is qualified for the 4 Unsupported contentions in
Cited 0 timesUnknownMinard Run Oil Co. v. United States Forest Service
894 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2012
As to decisions of law, the interlocutory appeal will establish law of the case.”). … “Agency action that does not qualify for Chevron deference may still deserve a lesser amount of deference under [Skidmore ].” Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140 , 65 S.Ct. 161 .
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2021
Citing the diversity of the parties and a qualifying amount in controversy in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Defendants removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on February 3, 2021. … Clearly, too, the mere fact that such a claim is joined in the same civil action as a claim for bodily injury does not alter its basic character as a separate and distinct claim.
Cited 0 timesUnknown303 B.R. 753 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2004
Kubichek, 83 Fed.Appx. 425 (3d Cir.2003)(For a claim to qualify as a compulsory counterclaim, there need not be precise identity of issues and facts between the claim and the counterclaim; rather, the relevant inquiry is … We do not reach the standing issue inasmuch as Debtor is also a movant and clearly has standing.
Cited 2 timesPublishedSHALLENBERGER v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2020
But even if this Court had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court and Third Circuit have clearly stated that, under the principles of Younger, lower courts must abstain from hearing cases like this one. … of a hearing and the need for discovery in advance; (2) “threshold issues of the Court's jurisdiction and authority to issue injunctive relief, including Rooker-Feldman, Younger, the Anti-Injunction Act, sovereign immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2024
A state court decision can be contrary to clearly established federal law in one of two ways. … The clearly established federal law for analyzing a sufficiency of the evidence claim is set forth in Jackson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDANA MINING COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC v. BRICKSTREET MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2024
“Insured means a person or organization qualifying as an insured in the Who is an Insured section of this contract.” Id. at 38. c. … A motion for judgment on the pleadings brought by a plaintiff 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
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2022
However, these two grievances are not about specific instances of inadequate care, but rather are about a “larger-scale denial of adequate medical care, in which prison officials clearly knew” that Dr. … To establish a violation of a prisoner’s right to informed consent, the prisoner must show that “ ‘(1) government officials failed to provide him with such information; (2) this failure caused him to undergo medical treatment
Cited 0 timesUnknownARCONIC CORPORATION v. NOVELIS INC.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2023
The court clearly rejected that argument in Spartan Concrete: Spartan's alternate argument that it should receive $181,429 in overpayment as a direct loss is likewise invalid. … This, as in Stelwagon, is insufficient to establish Section 4 damages. Id. at *10.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2021
Compensation Deadlock During the Executive Session of the Trustees held on December 3, 2014, an Employer Trustee presented a motion that the Fund compensate those Trustees who legally qualify … The Union Trustees respond that Zobrak is shielded from liability by the doctrine of arbitral immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2021
Compensation Deadlock During the Executive Session of the Trustees held on December 3, 2014, an Employer Trustee presented a motion that the Fund compensate those Trustees who legally qualify … The Union Trustees respond that Zobrak is shielded from liability by the doctrine of arbitral immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS' MEDICAL PLAN v. SCHWARTZMILLER
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2020
The form clearly states “IF YOU ARE MARRIED AND DO NOT ELECT THE REGULAR JOINT & SURVIVOR OPTION, YOUR SPOUSE MUST SIGN THIS APPLICATION.” (Ex. 8). … Lisa does not yet qualify for retirement benefits. (Id. at 166, 197). William has moved to Naples, Florida where he lives on a houseboat and collects SSI and his disability pension. (Id. at 8, 33-35, 88-89).
Cited 0 timesUnknown251 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 1965
Carter, 93 U.S. 78, 83 , 23 L.Ed. 807 ); it has no existence separate and apart from the provision which it is designed to limit or qualify. … It will also be noted that the titles to the Acts of 1949 and 1927 clearly set out their purpose which may be construed in considering the intention of the Legislature. Sterling v.
Cited 3 timesPublished105 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2000
For the same reason, Smith cannot establish that he was prejudiced by his attorneys’ choice of appellate issues. … However, Williams does not establish that Smith's sentence would necessarily have been reversed and remanded.
Cited 0 timesPublishedRUPERT v. RANGE RESOURCES - APPALACHIA, LLC
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2024
Class counsel must be “qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation,” Hoxworth v. … Barton and Stacy Burrows of Barton and Burrows, LLC, are “qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownHART v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2022
However, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s alleged cervical strain and irritable bowel syndrome did not qualify as severe impairments. (R. 14-15). … While the ALJ clearly credited the fact that Plaintiff has seizures, the RFC contains no provision to account for any time off-task to recover after a seizure.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna