Case law

HILL v. HARRY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2024

In order for a delay in filing a habeas petition to qualify for equitable tolling, a petitioner must show ““(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his … Instead, Petitioner indicates in his briefing that this individual concluded that “[t]his lady has clearly died from a failure to treat and Morphine overdosage.” ECF No. 22 at 23.

STEPHENS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2025

Thus, L.S. and M.S. no longer qualified for continued enrollment under the McKinney-Vento Act. Id. … You are the custodial parent of both [L.S. and M.S.], and you have clearly maintained a residence in Verona Borough since such time.” Id. On September 26, 2025, Ms.

HORVATH v. GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2019

The application did not define the terms “chronic illness” or “condition,” nor did it provide a list of medical conditions which would qualify as either a “chronic illness” or “condition.” … The undisputed facts establish that Mr. Yuzwa was diagnosed three times with gastroenteritis and once with IBS between April 2013 and April 2015.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of National Forge Co. v. Clark (In Re National Forge Co.)

326 B.R. 532 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 2005

Thus, the Debtor clearly could not have pressed the Adversary Proceeding against the Banks. … A reserve of $2 million has been established to cover potential expenses, including professional fees and indemnity claims.

HIGH OFF LIFE, LLC v. FREEBANDZ PRODUCTIONS, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2022

However, even if Rogers applies, the title “High Off Life” is not clearly related to the Album’s content, and the title is explicitly misleading as to its content. (Id. at 17-20). … As such, while the Album would appear to qualify as a work of artistic expression subject to the Rogers framework, it is unclear whether Rogers is applicable to the Alleged Infringing Goods, particularly given that the

FRANCI v. CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2024

Plaintiffs counter that “[bJoth Plaintiffs clearly allege odor experiences specifically impacting their private property interests.” (ECF No. 19, p. 14). … Thus, it argues that Plaintiffs cannot rely on this right to establish a public nuisance claim. (d.).

Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle

517 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1981

The 1978 amendments qualified this prohibition, however. … Mobay asks us to clearly set forth in this opinion the terms of their stipulation. The evidence to which Mobay apparently refers is Defendant’s Exh. No. 18.

Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc. v. AirSep Corp.

95 F. Supp. 2d 348 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2000

The evidence, however, establishes that the OMS 50 device does not anticipate Claim 1 of the ‘224 Patent, and therefore is of limited materiality at best, failing to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability under Rule … Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information.

CONEMAUGH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. v. PROSELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

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

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when “the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains ... and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rosenau v. … this policy.* * *The word “insured” means any person or organization qualifying as such under WHO IS INSURED (SECTION II)”).

ROSNICK v. NORBERT, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2024

As the above suggests, the evidentiary record, including deposition testimony, indicates clearly only the substantial lack of clarity that will confront the jury – even in Defendant’s payroll records. … 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.

RIG CONSULTING, INC. v. ROGERS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2024

“‘Good cause’ is established when it is specifically demonstrated that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury.” Glenmede Trust Co. v. Hutton, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995). … The Third Circuit further explained: “‘Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.

PALAKOVIC v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2019

A party can establish good case by “showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” Publicker Indus., Inc. v. … Sheptock, a corporate witness fully qualified to testify on all subjects listed in the Palakovics’ 30(b)(6) Notice. (ECF No. 131 at 5.)

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION HEALTHCARE PENNSYLVANIA v. HERITAGE VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2020

at Art. 10.4 (“[S]uch flexing down shall be done as follows, provided the remaining employees are qualified … to perform the work[.]”)]; [Id. … That they did not do so clearly is particularly significant here, because the presumption of arbitrability “may be rebutted only by the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration.”

HORTON v. RANGOS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2023

With respect to the probable-cause determination, the hearing officer can make several findings, including whether probable cause has been established, whether it has not been established, and when the Gagnon II hearing … Here, the proposed order to Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion clearly establishes that the injunction they seek is mandatory.

EBO v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2020

The Government’s § 851 Information established Ebo’s prior state conviction for violation of 35 P.S. … App’x 221, 224 (3d Cir. 2013) (“[T]he predicate drug offense need only be punishable by more than a year of imprisonment” to qualify under 21 U.S.C. § 841).

MCCORMACK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2022

“All” impairments, however, means only those “credibly established limitations.” Id. … The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has explained: Our cases have established some guidelines as to when a limitation is credibly established, and the governing regulations have something

HENA v. VANDEGRIFT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2020

Yet, “a forgiving interpretation does not render immune from dismissal or summary judgment claims that lack procedural or factual viability.” Id. … It provides broad coverage to the seller and clearly states that there are no other agreements between the parties.

BROWN v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.

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

Brown clearly and sufficiently demonstrate that Mr. … Brown’s defense and/or his affirmative defense – both of which clearly and unambiguously assert that Mr.

CRAWLEY v. CBS CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2022

qualified for the position at issue; and (4) he was treated less favorably than a sufficiently younger person under circumstances that give rise to an inference of age discrimination. … Defendants have provided no reason for their failure to renew Plaintiff’s employment agreement (Docket No. 41 at 25), even though such reason – that Plaintiff was out on medical leave with no return-to-work date – is clearly

HILL v. BARNACLE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 2021

Hill indicated at oral argument that she is not seeking to qualify Mr. Grote as an expert witness, and thus the scope of his testimony would be limited to something akin to the other witnesses’ testimony about Mrs. … Such testimony clearly crosses the line from observation to speculation and/or diagnosis, which is not acceptable testimony from a lay witness. See Fed. R.