Case law

WRIGHT v. SLH BETHEL PARK MANAGER, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2021

She then argues in her brief that this demonstrates that her employment “clearly did not end voluntarily.” (ECF No. 32 at 12-13.) … Wright similarly fails to establish causation.

HELMICK v. SMITH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2023

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 … A state court decision can be contrary to clearly established federal law in one of two ways.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Investors Security Corp.

415 F. Supp. 745 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1976

Moreover, even if we were to accept Traner Associates’ interpretation of the present Section 8-105, the most that would be established would be that the Code does not presently speak to the issue of who bears the burden of … The Bank, he alleges, is not a qualified purchaser because as the pledgee of the securities the Bank acquired only the rights which the transferor had, and that the Bank had notice of adverse claims in that the securities

BORGHESE LANE, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2023

contractors or subcontractors and if to the extent necessary to protect ITS and Borghese, including their respective owners, directors, officers, and employers, this constitutes a waiver of MHRS’s worker’s compensation immunity … There is no question of material fact to establish a mutual mistake, latent ambiguity, or any course of performance to support a reformation.

Pennenvironment v. PPG Industries, Inc.

127 F. Supp. 3d 336 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2015

The cited testimony from PPG’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent clearly establishes that, although PPG applied for an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities, it did not apply for an NPDES permit … Furthermore, in contrast with permitting cases, PPG’s liability cannot be established simply by establishing “compliance” or “non-compliance” with preexisting state standards and regulations.

McDonald v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

374 F. Supp. 3d 462 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2019

As we describe in our summary judgment analysis, Wells Fargo has not shown section 9625 immunizes it from liability merely because the McDonald family did not open an Estate before Wells Fargo's repossession and sale. … A "fail-safe" class is "one that is defined so that whether a person qualifies as a member depends on whether the person has a valid claim.

MUSSI v. Astrue

744 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2010

Such sources may not be used to establish the existence of an impairment. See Dougherty v. … He was under the impression that plaintiff was responding to the medication prescribed and had fairly clearly defined goals. R. 249.

THOMAS v. BRONCO OILFIELD SERVICES

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

Similarly, the Court omits separate citations to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Genuine Issues (“Def.’s Response”) where Defendant clearly admits to a fact contained in Plaintiff’s CSMF. … ” (5) “[A] custodian or qualified witness must attest that these conditions have been fulfilled . . .” Id. at *3 (footnotes omitted).

United States v. Kubini

19 F. Supp. 3d 579 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2014

The lenders were also misled to believe that the properties were appropriately valued and in the condition stated on the appraisals and that the buyers were financially qualified for the loans they obtained. (Id.). … financing 100% of the purchases of the properties, many of which were in very poor condition and worth far less than stated on the appraisals and approving loans for buyers who did not have the financial wherewithal to qualify

GREAR v. U.S. BANK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2022

None of these harms are sufficient to establish ascertainable loss. … The question of ascertainable loss was not discussed in the Superior Court’s decision, likely because the plaintiff had clearly established the loss of both money and personal property.

Unity Real Estate Co. v. Hudson

889 F. Supp. 818 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 1995

When this seemingly absolute protection is found to be qualified by *828 the police power, the natural tendency of human nature is to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappears. … Congress passed the Coal Act to spread the costs of UMWA benefit plans established and funded by the NBCWAs since 1950.

NLMK PENNSYLVANIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2021

exclusion request, unless [the Department of] Commerce approves a broader application . . . .”28 Each exclusion request must “specify the business activities in the United States within which the requester is engaged that qualify … Any objections submitted in opposition to exclusion requests must: clearly identify, and provide support for, its opposition to the proposed exclusion, with reference to the specific basis identified

LOCKHART v. CDM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LLC

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

He often interacted with plaintiff in non-verbal ways which clearly were meant to convey contempt, anger and disapproval. … It likewise is well established that "a constructive discharge qualifies as adverse employment action in the sense that it is the legal equivalent to actual termination." Price v. Delaware Dept. of Correction, 40 F.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS' MEDICAL PLAN v. SCHWARTZMILLER

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

He argued that Lisa was never qualified [nor] eligible to be a beneficiary of the 75% pop-up joint and survivor annuity and, as before, argued that he was entitled to retroactive benefits and a … “‘[T]he amount of a fee award is within the district court’s discretion so long as it employs correct standards and procedures and makes findings of fact not clearly erroneous.’”

DRIVER OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS I, LP v. ADAMS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2023

at 570 (rejecting the traditional 12(b)(6) standard established in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). … “Appoint a qualified, neutral special master to act as the Chairperson in connection with the 2023 Annual Meeting.” This remedy is moot.

TIMKO v. NSPA LOUNGE LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2025

Instead, “as the statutory text clearly dictates, where the defendant is simply aware that it is benefiting, that is enough.” … So what qualifies under this standard?

HOPE HOUSE IN MIDLAND PA v. BOROUGH OF MIDLAND

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2025

the property as intended; and, “[t]o the contrary, Plaintiff sought clarification from the County’s Planning and Zoning Department before opening its transition home,” and “the Department informed Plaintiff that its use qualified … things: Group residences and intermediate care facilities shall [comply with enumerated dimensional requirements] and shall not be approved unless plans prepared by an architect or engineer are submitted which clearly

STRINGFELLOW v. United States

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

As noted in Washington, medical testimony generally will be needed to establish the existence, extent, and permanency of the impairment. … It is Plaintiff's burden to establish that a proper administrative claim had been filed. Livera v.

WALSH v. ELDER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

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

That said, a “trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds” to ensure that juries are not exposed to unfairly prejudicial, confusing, … Defendants bear the burden of establishing that the need for disclosure is greater than the purpose behind the privilege. Raceway Petroleum, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39018, at *8.

REVZIP, LLC v. MCDONNELL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 2023

and money,” are “highly confidential,” and qualify as a trade secret subject to protection. … The Customer List therefore qualifies as a trade secret under both federal and state law. 2.