Case law

Straka v. Comcast Cable

897 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2012

.”); accord McGrath v. Lumbermens Merchandising Corp., 851 F.Supp.2d 855, 857 (E.D.Pa.2012); White v. Brown, 408 Fed.Appx. 595, 599 (3d Cir.2010). … Keller, 130 F.3d at 1109 (“As another court of appeals has put it, ‘federal courts are not arbitral boards ruling on the strength of ‘cause’ for discharge.

WILLIAMSON v. KIJAKAZI

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

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1153-54 (2019); Jesurum v. Secretary of U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs, 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Brown v. … See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987).

Wicker v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

371 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2005

Initially, the Court notes that the reliability of an expert does not hinge upon the specialization he practices or board certification he possesses. Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. … V.

Flannery Bolt Co. v. Greenslade

26 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1938

See Ferguson v. Omaha & S. W. R. Co., 8 Cir., 227 F. 513 ; Brun v. Mann, 8 Cir., 151 F. 145 , 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 154; Hume v. City of New York, 2 Cir., 255 F. 488 ; Loy v. Alston, 8 Cir., 172 F. 90 ; Lang v. … See Cunningham v. Pettigrew, 8 Cir., 169 F. 335 ; Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co., 8 Cir., 108 F. 821 , 65 L.R.A. 878 ; Knights of the Ku Klux Klann v. Strayer, 3 Cir., 34 F.2d 432 ; Chute v.

WHITE v. WALSH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2024

N.J. 1998) (quoting Geis v. Board of Educ. of Parsippany–Troy Hills, Morris Cnty., 774 F.2d 575, 580 (3d Cir.1985)); accord Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991); Haybarger v. … Brown, 469 F.2d 1280, 1282 (5th Cir. 1972) to determine whether the act of holding a member of the public in contempt was a judicial function: "at the time of the altercation [giving rise to the suit] Judge Brown was not

RODGERS v. MEEKS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2020

.”); Mickens-Thomas v. Vaughn, 355 F.3d 294, 310 d Cir. 2004) (ordering Parole Board to release petitioner on parole without preconditions). … Davis v. Brown, 311 F. Supp.2d 110, 113 (D.D.C. 2004) (quoting Fardella ». Garrison, 698 F.2d 208, 211 (4th Cir. 1982). See also Prassetto v. Pernill, 955 F.2d 176, 178 (2d Cir. 1992) (collecting cases); Lewis v.

Skerski v. Time Warner Cable Co.

168 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2000

See Brickers v. Cleveland Board of Education, 145 F.3d 846 (6th Cir.1998) (finding lifting to be an essential element of a job where it was identified as such by statute, even where the employee seldom had to lift). 2 . … See Allen v. Georgia Power Co., 980 F.Supp. 470, 478 (N.D.Ga.1997) and Vande Zande v. State of Wisconsin, 44 F.3d 538, 542 (7th Cir.1995).

ROSA-DIAZ v. OBERLANDER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2023

But under Pennsylvania law, the parole board has vast discretion to grant or deny parole, see 61 Pa. C.S.A. … §6137, and “[n]othing in [Pennsylvania’s] code requires the parole board to deny parole in the face of a misconduct record or to grant parole in its absence.” Fantone v.

HUNTER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2026

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Petitioner bears a “strong burden to show specific facts” supporting equitable tolling. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 928 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Brown v. … See also Obado v.

Anderson v. INTERN. BRO. OF ELECTRICAL WKRS., ETC.

422 F. Supp. 1379 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1976

Anderson brought unfair labor charges against the Union before the National Labor Relations Board. When the pickets were withdrawn by the Union, the unfair labor charges were dropped by the Andersons. … Chambers v. Montgomery, 411 Pa. 339 , 192 A.2d 355 (1963).

EQT CORPORATION v. WINGO

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

BROWN, United States Magistrate Judge. I. … Brown United States Magistrate Judge CC: Hon. Robert J.

Davila v. United States

247 F. Supp. 3d 650 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2017

The Court denied Officer Bienemann’s Motion to Dismiss and the Northern Regional Joint Police Board’s Motion to Dismiss. Id. … Both Officer Bienemann and the Northern Regional Joint Police Board remain Defendants in No. 13-cv-70. .The United States' Motion to Dismiss is docketed at No. 13-cv-70, ECF No. 115. .

ROSA-DIAZ v. OBERLANDER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2023

But under Pennsylvania law, the parole board has vast discretion to grant or deny parole, see 61 Pa. C.S.A. … §6137, and “[nJothing in [Pennsylvania’s] code requires the parole board to deny parole in the face of a misconduct record or to grant parole in its absence.” Fantone v.

CUTSFORTH, INC. v. LEMM LIQUIDATING COMPANY, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2020

Nonetheless, scattered references to Wabtec’s board of directors (none of the examples cited by Defendants reference Mr. … Finally, the facts in Shumek v.

THOMAS v. MOSER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2020

As the Supreme Court explained in Superintendent v. … United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 264-65 (3d Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012).

BUTLER v. FLOYD

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2025

V. … Brown United States Magistrate Judge CC: Hon.

OLINGER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1153- 54 (2019); Jesurum v. Secretary of U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs, 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Brown v. … See also Berry v. Sullivan, 738 F. Supp. 942, 944 (W.D.

Laurel Capital Group, Inc. v. BT Financial Corp.

45 F. Supp. 2d 469 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1999

See Hicks v. Resolution Trust Corp., 970. F.2d 378, 380 (7th Cir.1992). CRA statements are submitted so that the Federal Home Loan Bank Board can evaluate the institution’s service. … .”); V & V Food Prods., Inc. v.

Consolidation Coal Co. v. International Union, United Mine Workers

431 F. Supp. 787 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 1977

The narrow exception to this rule is set forth in Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks, 398 U.S. 235 , 90 S.Ct. 1583 , 26 L.Ed.2d 199 [1970] which in turn is further limited by Buffalo Forge Co. v. … This view was endorsed by the Court of Appeals of this Circuit in United States Steel v.

Baird v. Aluminum Seal Co.

149 F. Supp. 874 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1956

See also Sharswood, J., in Mayer v. … See Brown v. Schwartz, 5 Cir., 164 F.2d 151 . In any event, it relates to the issue of damages which is not reached in this decision.