Case law

BELDING v. RUSSO

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

Statement of Facts In 2019, Plaintiff, Michael Belding, was elected to the Greene County Board of Commissioners (“the Board”). (ECF No. 32, at ¶ 25). … In Pembaur v.

Elish v. McDonnell & Miller, Inc.

32 F.R.D. 216 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1963

In Baxter v. … However, the Court points out that in none of the cases cited by the defendant, Cop-pack, (Florio v. Powder Power Tool Corp., 284 F.2d 367 , 3rd Cir., 1957; Rufo v. Bastian Blessing Co., supra; Kramer v.

CARLTON v. NORWIN SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2024

Jean W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d at 267. … V.

VUYANICH v. SMITHTON BOROUGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2020

Supp. 3d at 489-90 (quoting Brown & Root, Inc. v. Breckenridge, 211 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2000)); Levys 2016 WL 7664840, at **1, 4. … See also McCormick v. Braverman, 451 F.3d 382 (6" Cir. 2006); Hoblock y, Albany County Board of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d. Cir. 2005).

PROTIN v. GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2024

See Brown v. TD Bank, N.A., No. CV 15-5474, 2016 WL 1298973, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 4, 2016) (“Litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally draining. . . . … Brown, 2016 WL 1298973, at *7; Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743 (1983) (“[B]aseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to petition.”).

WINWOOD v. WHITEKO

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2025

Connolly v. Lane Constr. … Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v.

United States v. Langston

194 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1961

Both sentences specified that defendant may become eligible for parole at such time as the Board of Parole may determine. Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208 . A rule to show cause was issued. Alexander J. … Darcy v. Handy, 3 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 407 , 428 and United States v.

GALLOWAY v. WALTON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2020

Bill,” and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (“the Board”) as defendants. Id. at 8 and 12. … See also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46-47 (1991) (court’s inherent power is not displaced by statutes); Stafford v.

Lakeshore Motor Freight Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers of America

483 F. Supp. 1150 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1980

Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238 , 82 S.Ct. 1318 , 8 L.Ed.2d 462 (1962); Alloy Cast Steel Company v. United Steelworkers of America, 70 F.R.D. 687 (N.D.Ohio 1976); DuQuoin Packing Company v. … Recently, in the case of Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. I. U.

Custom Tool & Grinding, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2026

Brown, United States Magistrate Judge. I. Recommendation Plaintiff Custom Tool & Grinding, Inc. … Brown United States Magistrate Judge CC: Hon. J.

McKeesport Tin Plate Co. v. Heiner

4 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 1933

See Graham & Foster v. Goodcell, 282 U. S. 410 , 51 S. Ct. 186 , 75 L. Ed. 415 . The main issues relate to the amortization of war facilities. … Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 141 , 41 S. Ct. 55 , 65 L. Ed. 188 .

Silvestri v. Barbieri

434 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1977

Burford v. Sun Oil Company, 319 U.S. 315 , 63 S.Ct. 1098 , 87 L.Ed. 1424 [1943]. A comprehensive treatment of both these grounds and the relation between them is illustrated by a case arising in this court, Roy v. … Nevertheless, the specific holding of Roy v.

In Re Penn Housing Corporation

367 F. Supp. 661 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1973

Associated Hardware Supply Co. v. Big Wheel Distribution Co., 236 F. Supp. 879, 882 [W.D.Pa.1965], rev. on other grounds 355 F.2d 114 [3rd Cir. 1966]; Congress Financial Corporation v. … Gill Co. v. Fireside Realty Inc., 262 Or. 486, 488 , 499 P.2d 813 [1972].

MYERS v. FAYETTE COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2020

See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). As noted by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Malleus v. … Sposto v. Borough of Dickson City, 2005 WL 3307333, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2005) (citing Baldassare v. New Jersey, 250 F.3d 188, 195 (3d Cir. 2001)). See also Watters v.

VANDERVOORT v. NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2024

Krouse v. Am. … Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 569 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 797 (3d Cir. 2001)).

Knapp v. FRANKLIN COACH COMPANY

365 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1973

The court further quoted from Cecere v. … Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 [ 37 S.Ct. 30 , 61 L.Ed. 222 ]; Hess v. Pawloski, [ 274 U.S. 352 , 47 S.Ct. 632 , 71 L.Ed. 1091 ] supra; Young v.

Design Consultants Engineering Corp. v. Security Insurance

309 F. Supp. 1141 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1970

United States v. Howard, 360 F.2d 373 , C.A.3, 1966; Kasar v. Miller Printing, 36 F.R.D. 200 (W.D.Pa.1964). … In Kraus v.

Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg. Co.

56 F.R.D. 82 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 1972

Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 , 71 S.Ct. 209 , 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950); Brown v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 282 F.2d 522 (3rd Cir. 1960); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 60.18 [8] and 60.-27 [2]. … See United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220 , 80 S.Ct. 282 , 4 D.Ed.2d 259 (1960); Lapiczak v. Zaist, 451 F.2d 79 (2nd Cir. 1971); Motteler v. J. A. Jones Construction Company, 447 F.2d 954 (7th Cir. 1971); Perry v.

Wirtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowing Ass'n

244 F. Supp. 745 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 1965

As stated by Chief Justice Warren in Bolling v. … Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 449 , 85 S.Ct. 1707 , 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965) as being a bill of attainder (or legislative trial) at least as far as Communists are concerned.

Ball v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

67 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 1946

Mackay v. Easton, 19 Wall. 619 , 86 U.S. 619 , 22 L.Ed. 211 . This is elementary. United States v. … As a matter of fact, the United States v. Paramount opinion did not undertake to condemn all clearances, but left them to be considered by the Arbitration Board which it contemplated.