Case law

WINGARD v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2023

Wingard was qualified to perform. Id.; Ex. 23 (Expert Report of H. Peterson), p. 22. 68. Ms. … To the contrary, the Court reads the ALJ’s decision as establishing the date of the accident as the disability onset date and finding that Mr.

CANNON v. W.W. FRIEDLINE, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 2025

old; (2) suffered an adverse employment decision; (3) was qualified for the position in question; and (4) was ultimately replaced by someone sufficiently younger so as to support an inference of discrimination … In addition, Plaintiff’s under-developed averments of gender discrimination are largely unsupported – clearly insufficiently supported - by record evidence. 32 Although Plaintiff testifies that Lyons, a male office

PLETCHER v. GIANT EAGLE, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2022

Legal Standards It is well established that: 3 Plaintiffs contend that the Court did not establish deadlines for amendment … “To establish a violation of Section 504, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he or she is handicapped under the Act; (2) qualified for the program of benefits from which he or she had been excluded; (3) the program receives

KALLOK v. WING ENTERPRISES, INC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2023

Bizzak’s qualifications go to the weight that a trier of fact may give to his opinions, not whether he is qualified to offer them. Moreover, while Defendant clearly has identified bases upon which to challenge Dr. … Bizzak nor any other evidence of record establishes that the Ladder was defective at the time of sale. Therefore, any such conclusion would be improperly speculative.

COOPER v. O'MALLEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2024

A disability is established when the claimant can demonstrate some medically determinable basis for an impairment that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity for a statutory twelve-month period … Both of her opinions were clearly based on this care and plainly addressed Plaintiff’s mental impairments in evaluating his functional capacity. Indeed, in finding Dr.

ROVER PIPELINE LLC v. ROVER TRACT NO. PA-WA-HL-001.000T

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2020

389, 397 (3d Cir. 1990), the Court of Appeals specifically stated: One authority on eminent domain proceedings has noted, [T]he owner of land taken is generally recognized as qualified … Evidence of record clearly establishes when the Buchanan family bought the Buchanan Farm it was zoned R-1, with no public sewage to the property.

UPMC v. CBIZ, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2020

Altoona’s Retirement Benefit Plans Altoona sponsored two qualified defined benefit pension plans,? … Additionally, a plaintiff cannot recover damages beyond those which can be established with “reasonable certainty.” Id.

Union Mechling Corp. v. United States

390 F. Supp. 411 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 1974

On April 20, 1972, the I.C.C.’s hearing examiner (now an Administrative Law Judge)' handed down his report which recommended the denial of SCNO’s application because SCNO had not established that the present and future public … unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Medure v. Vindicator Printing Co.

273 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2002

This assertion clearly is not supported by Ms. Vizenor’s declaration. … This testimony clearly does not establish that Plaintiff was being investigated by the FBI. Elizabeth Foster-Anderson was a former accountant for the casino (Foster-Anderson Dep. at 8).

CLAIBORNE v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.

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

The Court finds that FedEx has established good cause for modification of the Case Management Order at [527]. … Because FedEx was headquartered in this District during most, if not all, of the timeframe relevant herein,7 this factor weighs slightly against transfer, given that Plaintiffs’ claims also clearly arose in their districts

Vogel v. Pittsburgh Public School District

40 F. Supp. 3d 592 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2014

was qualified for the position at issue; and (4) he was ultimately replaced by another employee “who was sufficiently younger to support an inference of discriminatory animus.” … For one, the applicable collective bargaining agreement between PPSD and Vogel’s union clearly contemplates that teacher ratings would occur on an annual basis. (Ex.

RAO v. SLEEP NUMBER BED, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2024

Rao’s Exhibit B clearly identifies Synchrony as the “data furnisher.” The Court holds that Synchrony’s duty to investigate was never triggered. … However, Rao’s averments are nothing more than general, legal conclusions, and he did not clearly inform both Sleep Number and Synchrony of its alleged participation in the fraud.

MBEWE v. DELBALSO

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2021

In applying it, this Court’s first task is to ascertain what law falls within the scope of the “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). … The “clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), in which to analyze it is set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).

RAZEY v. O'MALLEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2024

However, she found that some of Plaintiff’s alleged impairments did not qualify as severe impairments, included several – such as borderline intellectual functioning, depression, anxiety, and substance abuse disorder – … This language clearly states that the new listings will apply to claims pending after the effective date.

United States v. Taylor

843 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1993

This short-lived spree of burglaries was clearly a small-time operation. No actual physical violence or weapon was involved. … Tarter concluded that on a scale of 1 to 10, the defendant’s drug addiction would qualify for a score of 10.

Wallace v. Price

265 F. Supp. 2d 545 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2003

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the R & R and herein, the Court concludes that the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was neither “contrary to” nor “an unreasonable application of’ “clearly established Federal … In his objection to this recommendation, Wallace contends that the Magistrate Judge improperly deferred to state court findings that do not “qualify for deferential review under AEDPA.” (Dkt. no. 39 at 30).

DAIMLER v. MOEHLE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2022

As explained below, neither Fee’s testimony, nor the Delaware Court verified Complaint, qualify as competent corroborating evidence. … In response to such evidence that clearly contradicts Daimler’s Complaint allegations, Daimler’s Affidavit relates, “I remember quite clearly that Moehle made the GE investment representation to Talbot Heppenstall [of UPMC

EARL v. NVR, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2022

In other complex tort actions, such as product liability cases, courts have also opined that expert witnesses are often necessary to establish liability. … expert 9 Expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which is titled “Testimony by Expert Witnesses,” and states: A witness who is qualified

MARTINEZ v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2023

The Government counters that his Motion should be denied without a hearing as his arguments are clearly undermined by the existing record and are otherwise without merit. (Docket Nos. 284; 288). … He added that Defendant remained subject to the mandatory minimum of 120 months’ incarceration unless he qualified for the safety valve. (Id.).

HADEED v. ADVANCED VASCULAR RESOURCES OF JOHNSTOWN, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2019

First, the proffered witness must be qualified as an expert. Pineda, 520 F.3d at 244. … The report does not clearly connect to the parties and claims asserted in this case and, if admitted, would likely confuse the issues and mislead the jury.