Case law

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

Cambist Films, Inc. v. Duggan

298 F. Supp. 1148 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1969

Even under the old rule, however, we think the film would qualify as a suitable object for *1152 seizure, if a valid arrest of the theatre managers or projectionists was made. … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

COULTER v. COULTER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2023

immunity from money damages in section 1983 causes of action.190 They “are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Although the principles of qualified immunity may be applicable to this case, we need not assess the second step of the qualified immunity analysis as to whether the underlying rights were clearly established because Jean

A.L. v. Eichman

376 F. Supp. 3d 547 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2019

Eichman qualifies as a state actor under the third Kach test. 6 VI. Conclusion The evidence of record fails to establish that Dr. … Pa. 2012) (finding that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to establish that the defendant doctors would qualify as state actors because they examined the child to determine whether her injuries were the result of

Tressler v. Pyramid Healthcare, Inc.

422 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2006

University of Colorado, 658 F.2d 1372 , 1387 (10th Cir.1981) (concluding that “appropriate standards” for evaluation of § 504 action are (1) plaintiffs establishment of a prima facie case showing he was otherwise qualified … The language of the Rehabilitation Act clearly requires that Plaintiff establish that he was denied treatment solely because of his disability. See Clark v.

Herrmann v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

72 F.R.D. 182 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1976

individual coercion clearly is not essential to establish the antitrust violation alleged by plaintiffs. … Depriving defendant of its right to assert otherwise viable counterclaims against such class members by affording them some special species of immunity is, in my view, too high a price for fostering all-inclusive plaintiff

Michaels v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

628 F. Supp. 48 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1985

Plaintiff clearly meets the first element as he belongs to the class of individuals protected by the ADEA, those 40 but less than 70 years of age, 29 U.S.C. 631(a). … Assuming arguendo that plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, we find no evidence in the record that would permit a conclusion that defendant’s non-discriminatory rationale was pretextual.

Ravis v. Labriola (In re Investors Security Corp.)

6 B.R. 415 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1980

Claimants’ allegation that the “trust” relationship between themselves and the Parks increases SIPA recovery is clearly erroneous. The joint account between Mr. and Mrs. … Labriola does not meet the requirements of a “qualifying trust account” under Rule 104.

Pennsylvania R. v. United States

227 F. 911 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 1915

In seeking the authority of the Commission to make the order in controversy, we have nothing to do with the merit of the order, the injustice of the practice found to exist, or the wisdom of the practice established (Texas … The words, “to the best of its ability,” of course, qualify the duty to maintain switch connections, and do not qualify the prohibited discrimination. Again, in section 3 of the act (Comp.

MDB v. Punxsutawney Christian Sch.

386 F. Supp. 3d 565 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 2019

Punxsutawney's response may not have been what Bridge requested, but that does not mean that it was so clearly unreasonable as to have violated federal law. … "Establishing municipal liability on a failure to train claim under § 1983 is difficult." Reitz , 125 F.3d at 145 .

Grosso v. UPMC

857 F. Supp. 2d 517 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2012

Type I diabetes is an auto-immune disease where the body fails to produce insulin, leaving a sufferer with high blood sugar levels. (Bahl’s Dep. (ECF No. 38-7) at 11-12.) … Grosso has not adduced facts from which a reasonable jury could find that she is a “qualified individual with a disability,” see id., and, therefore, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, see Sulima, 602 F.3d

NELATURY v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

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

“Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Zaloga v. … A court may dismiss a complaint based on qualified immunity when “the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leveto v. Lapina, 258 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Hafley v.

United States v. Cihal

336 F. Supp. 261 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1972

We note that the authority given the Attorney General under Section 2514 does not contain the additional qualifying statement of Section 2516, “or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General … Rather it is a post established in the Dept, of Justice by administrative regulation to assist the Attorney General in various matters submitted for the Attorney General’s action and perform such other duties and functions

Erie Builders Concrete Co. v. Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority

705 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 1989

. § 35 (a) makes local governments immune from damages, interest on damages, costs or attorney’s fee arising under the antitrust laws. … The Act applies to any (other) special function governmental unit established by State Law ... 15 U.S.C. 34(1)(B). Reviewing the Pa.

Delozier v. Tyrone Area School Board

247 F. Supp. 30 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 1965

A citizen, a qualified voter, is no more nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm. … Nor do we believe that the status of a local school district, being an arm or agency of the state legislature to administer its educational system makes it immune from the constitutional requirement.

COMER v. AMERICAN TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2025

Additionally, for Plaintiff’s claim against Krauss personally, the Court likewise determines that amendment is not clearly futile. … That is not to say that an indemnity agreement must specifically waive immunity provided by § 481, but “the intent to indemnify against claims by employees of the alleged indemnitor … must clearly appear from the terms

Lee v. United States Government

497 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1980

The government contends there is no constitutional right to be immune from taxes. The power to tax is a legitimate exercise of the government that overrides individual preference. … Clearly the granting of the exemption does not interfere with the establishment or preservation of the general welfare of the public.

FLEMING v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

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

They raise the defense of qualified immunity. /d., p. 13. … Thus, Jones is entitled to qualified immunity on the failure to intervene claim. 6 See Pub. Interest. Rsch. Group of N.J. v.

BIELICH v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc.

6 F. Supp. 3d 589 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2014

At the time she was hired, Bielich was qualified for the position. (Id. ¶ 80.) … (ECF No. 51 at 15-16.) ■ On this record, the court cannot conclude that these proposed accommodations would be clearly ineffective.

WAKEFIELD v. WETZEL

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

Therefore, to “establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, an inmate must allege that: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some … There are exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity, such as when a state waives its immunity and consents to suit in federal court, or where Congress has specifically abrogated the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity in