Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,938 results
0.94s
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2021
Nevertheless, the record establishes that the use of OC spray was brief. This is reflected in the absence of any reaction to the spray by the Defendants. … This is noted in the contemporaneous medical records and can be clearly seen on the handheld video. See ECF No. 113- 1, p. 35.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMCDONOUGH v. LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2024
Some tangible harms, such as physical injuries or monetary losses, “readily qualify as concrete injuries.” Id. at 425. … McDonough does not clearly delineate his basis for standing on this claim, and the Court finds that it lacks standing.
Cited 0 timesUnknown95 F. Supp. 2d 290 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1997
A The Risks of Establishing Liability at Trial 36. … For those reasons, it is not readily apparent who qualifies for inclusion in the proposed subclass.
Cited 34 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2026
The burden of establishing mootness is on the party seeking to demonstrate the loss of standing. Lutter v. JNESO, 86 F.4th 111, 120 (3d Cir. 2023). … Any further motion should clearly set forth the basis for summary judgment with citations to the relevant ordinances, evidence in the record, and case law. B.
Cited 0 timesUnknown687 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2009
The actual loan amount of $39,050.83 is several thousand dollars more than plaintiffs believed they had agreed to borrow or were qualified to borrow. (PL’s S.F. ¶ 23.) … Whether plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of malicious prosecution. Defendant argues that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of wrongful use of civil proceeding.
Cited 18 timesPublished628 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2009
Thus, the indictment clearly informs Defendants of this charge against them and enables Defendants to plead a former acquittal or prosecution in the event of any subsequent prosecution. … In the absence of any grant of use-fruits immunity and a promise not to use her statements against Samuel Manfredi, Mrs. Manfredi cannot be more specific in such a proffer. (Docket No. 95 at 14-15).
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2020
G-Raver argues that the Shirts are “clearly a parody” of Cornette, and therefore deserving of First Amendment protection. (ECE No. 22 at 12-14, 16-18.) … Further, the Shirts are not “expressive works,” and therefore 21 not subject to immunity. (Id.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2025
As Defendants assert, the purpose of this form was to determine whether Cypher qualified for LTD benefits and had nothing to do with his FMLA leave. (DRPSAF ¶100.) … Thus, an employee who requests leave does not clearly communicate to her employer that she is disabled and desires an accommodation. Id. at 340-41 (citation omitted).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2021
faith in establishing the challenged rounding policy. … Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Counsel negotiated a very favorable settlement early in the litigation against experienced and qualified opponents (ECF No. 52 at p. 10).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDawn L. v. Greater Johnstown School District
586 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2008
M.L.’s final grades for sixth grade nonetheless qualified her for membership in the National Junior Honor Society. 41 Vol. 5 p. 112. … Mayes claims to remember clearly is so inconsistent with every other bit of evidence in the case that it calls into question his entire testimony.
Cited 46 timesPublishedCOOPER v. CHILDREN'S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2021
But now, Cooper clearly remembers in her affidavit what she did not tell her case manager during that same time period. (ECF No. 99 at 5). … Cooper Can Establish a Prima Facie Case of Race Discrimination To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for
Cited 0 timesUnknownDEPASQUALE v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2020
The Court affords this testimony little weight, as these questions attempt to elicit a legal interpretation from DePasquale with respect to whether his use of the truck would qualify as “regular use” under the Policy. … )] is unambiguous in regard to the sufficiency of waiver of intra-policy stacking as it speaks to stacking as “the sum of the limits for each motor vehicle insured under the policy,” the language does not clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownGUIDAS v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2024
§ 218 (providing that the FLSA does not “excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under [the FLSA]”); … A court may, however, need to consult the BLA’s provisions “to consider whether the activities at issue are 17 clearly excluded from the [employees’] workday.” Ballard v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownVRAKAS v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2019
The Declaration clearly states that she reviewed documents “including” a list of examples—it never represented that the list was exhaustive. Pl. Class. Cert. Dec. at Ex. 4. This omission is not evidence. … Specifically, they allege that Plaintiffs have not established how they would determine “how much, if any, of the drop in U.S.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMANIVANNAN v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2024
The response was sent with a letter advising that “[w]hile a state court subpoena is ineffective against an officer or agency of the United States due to its sovereign immunity, … the DOE is providing the requested records … There, the court held that a grand jury subpoena did not qualify as a court order within the exception.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2023
basic rate; (g) The hours for which the employee is paid not less than one and one-half times such established basic rate qualify as overtime hours under section 7(e)(5) … as this Court previously explained in granting conditional certification on Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, the rate reduction policy is readily identified and evidenced by the exhibits submitted by Plaintiff, and is quite clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownBESSEMER SYSTEM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. FISERV SOLUTIONS, LLC
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2020
City of New York, 448 N.E.2d 413, 416-17 (N.Y. 1983) (“More pointedly, an exculpatory clause is unenforceable when, in contravention of acceptable notions of morality, the misconduct for which it would grant immunity smacks … Fiserv Solutions’s duty to provide account processing services clearly arises exclusively from the Master Agreement.8 Thus, as currently pled, Bessemer’s Complaint sets forth facts which tend to establish that, despite
Cited 0 timesUnknownWILSON v. COLUMBIA GAS OF PENNSYLVANIA
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2023
Disparate Treatment To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show: (1) the plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the … Not only did Wilson raise race as an issue in documents he submitted to the EEOC, but his clam of national origin discrimination based on being Jamaican clearly overlaps with a claim of racial discrimination based on being
Cited 0 timesUnknown513 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2007
The first phase, “eligibility,” requires the factfinder to determine whether the defendant qualifies for the death penalty, while the second phase, “selection,” necessitates a decision as to whether a particular defendant … The Notice of Intent in the case sub judice clearly comports with that requirement by listing four non-statutory aggravating factors that the government intends to pursue pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3593 (a)(2) and 3592(c).
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2024
“According to the Third Circuit, Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy is satisfied by showing that (1) Class Counsel is competent and qualified to conduct the litigation; and (2) class representatives have no conflicts of interests. … Citizens is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Standard Overtime Portion of the PMWA Regular Rate Claim The parties’ submissions clearly demonstrate that under Citizens
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna