Case law

Crucible, Inc. v. Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB

403 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 1975

Moreover, Stora-Sweden clearly profits from the sale of its products in this state. … Any other result would permit a foreign corporation to market its products in this state, profit from their sale here, and yet retain immunity from suit in the Pennsylvania courts simply by structuring its business operation

Ryder v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

879 F. Supp. 534 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1995

In the usual case, where a plaintiff is terminated from his position and a younger person fills the job he previously had, a prima facie case is established by showing that the plaintiff is at least 40 years old, was qualified … As to Defendant’s argument that summary judgment should be granted because the after-acquired evidence doctrine bars all damages in this case, two recent decisions binding on this court clearly hold that after-acquired evidence

Roach v. American Radio Systems Corp.

80 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1999

Therefore, ARS maintains, Plaintiff cannot establish, as required to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, that he was replaced by someone sufficiently younger. … Concerning its not-qualified argument, ARS contends that Plaintiff cannot establish that he was qualified for the on-air/Assistant Program Director position because he admitted that he was not interested in the position and

Estate of Creek v. Mittal Steel USA, Inc.

629 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2008

Pursuant to Rule 56, the Court must enter summary judgment against the party “who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear … to judgment as a matter of law as such immunity applies preventing Plaintiffs from recovering damages for their injuries and deaths.

BERNARD v. IGNELZI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2024

There are two kinds of immunity under § 1983: qualified immunity and absolute immunity. Yarris v. Cty. of Delaware, 465 F.3d 129, 134-35 (3d Cir. 2006). … They clearly did not.

LILLEY v. HIRZ

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2022

Judicial immunity is an “immunity from suit, not just from an ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 (1991) (“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long

Dillan Roth v. Exact Sciences Corporation and Kevin Conroy

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2026

Conroy replied, “Even better protection is natural immunity coupled with vaccine immunity.” (Id. at § 70). … in fact, qualified for any of them.

POSTIE v. ADAMS

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

He argues that Pennsylvania law and his due process rights under the United States Constitution clearly entitled him to an immediate hearing in front of a Pennsylvania judge to establish cause to detain him … Finally, the Court does not adopt the R&R’s conclusion that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr.

Thomas v. Penn Central Company

379 F. Supp. 24 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1974

It is well established that a plaintiff's recovery under the ordinary negligence rule is limited to damages which will make him whole, but a plaintiff is also permitted further recovery under certain circumstances where it … GA-23000 . . . will transmit to The Travelers Insurance Company 81 cents per `Qualifying Employee' per month as premium for the insurance benefit payments resulting from on-duty injuries.

Analytichem International, Inc. v. Har-Len Associates., Inc.

490 F. Supp. 271 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 1980

Plaintiff’s conduct as manifested in the above-quoted letter clearly comes within the condemned course of conduct. … understood), and any other relevant circumstances relative to establishment of the dissipation vel non of the patent abuse.

Untracht v. Fikri

454 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2006

The University Act, which clearly resulted from state action by the General Assembly and the Governor of Pennsylvania, established the “... … The next section, § 11112, establishes guidelines that, if followed, will assure that those involved in the peer review process in question will be entitled to immunity. 42 U.S.C. § 11112 .

TAYLOR v. LT. NEPOLEAN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2022

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

McConville v. Weinberger

394 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 1975

For a widow to qualify the conditions of entitlement are set out rather clearly: An individual is entitled to benefits if such individual: (a) Is the widow (see § 410.320) or surviving divorced wife (see § 410.321) of a miner … The fact that plaintiff is effectively precluded from coverage by § 410.490 does not foreclose to her the opportunity of qualifying under the permanent provisions of the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 410.401 et seq.

DELUCA v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH

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

immunity, and they are unpersuasive. … In examining whether a right was “clearly established,” the framing often influences the outcome.

Johnson v. Pa. Bureau of Corrections

661 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1987

Thus, defendants’ “qualified burden of proof” more directly concerns the SCIP’s security interests. … A guard simply walking past a cell without stopping for inspection cannot see clearly into the cell. He or she passes too quickly to make a full observation.

Brennan v. Parnham

366 F. Supp. 1014 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 1973

to qualify for exemption. … In both instances, the record clearly fails to establish that these employees were at the management level.

USX Corp. v. Adriatic Insurance Co.

99 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2000

Thereafter, any railroad action undertaken pursuant to the rate bureau established by the authorized agreement of Eastern Railroads was immune from antitrust scrutiny. 8 The MDL 587 juries were instructed fully on all immunity … Although the participating railroads were permitted to establish rates, charges, divisions and proposed tariffs to be filed with the ICC under the rate-bureau mechanism, in order to maintain ICA immunity each railroad had

Marn v. United States

681 F. Supp. 266 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 1987

The Federal Tort Claims Act constitutes a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States. United States v. S.A. … The Court views this as a non-policy professional matter for which plaintiff may recover if certain factors are established.” (Slip op. at 7).

BARTLEY v. RINKER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2023

Count I (Malicious Prosecution) – Qualified Immunity Defendant Rinker next argues she is entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 58, pp. 6- 7). … Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ... which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Flanders v. Dzugan

156 F. Supp. 3d 648 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2016

Even assuming that a constitutional violation can be established, Defendants contend that Dzugan is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established