Case law

HAMMONDS v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2019

Wainwright and Maintenance Supervisor Joe Glaph11 under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … performing discretionary acts enjoy qualified immunity from money damages in section 1983 actions when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which a “reasonable person

United States v. Iezzi

451 F. Supp. 1027 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1976

The specific offenses charged were clearly identified and their elements stated. … We think the testimony of the custodian and the person best qualified to establish the routine business procedures followed by St.

United States v. Kohne

358 F. Supp. 1053 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1973

While Agent Meek was not an eminently qualified expert, we believe he was sufficiently qualified to give his opinion as to the pen register’s reputation for accuracy. … While no case clearly decides the issue, 18 U.

Novotny v. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

430 F. Supp. 227 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1977

female employees and replacing them with less qualified male employees.” … In this case we believe the evidence fails to establish this element of a § 1985(3) violation.” We note in Rackin v.

Naccarati v. WILKINS TP., PA.

846 F. Supp. 405 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1993

Irreparable injury is only established where money damages are difficult to ascertain or are clearly inadequate. … The statute clearly prohibits active campaigning in a political or election campaign.

Kiliszewski v. Overnite Transportation Co.

818 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1993

Plaintiff asserts that a younger, less-qualified sales person filled his position. Mr. … The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she (1) belongs to a protected class, ie. is at least 40 years of age; (2) was qualified for the position

Parkinson v. Guidant Corp.

315 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2004

Crooks’ proffered opinion is that “manufacturing flaws are clearly present on both the titanium wire and the stainless steel ribbon and ... these manufacturing flaws contributed to the premature fracture of these wires as … In response, plaintiffs state that they do not intend to introduce the reports to establish prior incidents of guidewire fractures, but that they may seek to introduce statements made in two of the ten reports as admissions

Livolsi v. City of New Castle, Pa.

501 F. Supp. 1146 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1980

Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants did not meet this contractual obligation and, in fact, listed as eligible individuals who were not qualifying employees under the Fund. … We feel that this case is clearly distinguishable from Usery .

Zumerling v. Marsh

591 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1984

Clearly, Title 5 provides the greater benefits to the federal employees in this instance. … Clearly, Defendants correctly followed the applicable regulations and statutes.

Bowles v. Stitzinger

59 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1945

. *96 The courts have held any record which is required to be kept by law is a quasi-public record, and that constitutional immunities do not apply to those records. See Wilson v. … This was clearly implied in the Boyd case [Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 ], where the fact that the papers involved were the private papers of the claimant was constantly emphasized.

DOE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2023

Defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff [shows] (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at

Decker v. EduCap, Inc.

88 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 767 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2012

Because the non-profit was “clearly devoting some of its financial resources to supporting the program”, the court agreed with the district court’s finding that the loan was made through a program funded by a nonprofit institution … Defendant does not argue that the loan qualifies for exemption from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(8)(B), which exempts "any other educational loan that is a qualified education loan,” as defined in the Internal Revenue

HAMMONDS v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2022

Qualified Immunity As a final matter, Defendants also argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based on a defense of qualified immunity. … As a result, summary judgment based upon a defense of qualified immunity will be denied. III.

Chengelis v. Cenco Instruments Corporation

386 F. Supp. 862 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 1975

Read’s execution of all three agreements is clearly on behalf of Chemlime; no recital of Mr. Read’s connection with Cenco appears on the documents. … But “(absent bad faith in its formation or its use as some nefarious instrumentality, (the corporation) can stand independent and immune to the piercing operation.” Maley v. Carroll, 381 F.2d 147, 153 (5th Cir. 1967).

Hall v. Central Medical Pavillion

654 F. Supp. 1156 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1987

Plaintiff’s allegations of discriminatory conduct culminating in a layoff from a job for which she was arguably *1158 qualified, over a period when a younger employee was arguably treated more favorably, establishes a prima … Defendant has come forth with evidence to establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the layoff. It is clearly plaintiff’s burden to show that the proffered justification is a pretext.

Frazier v. Mabus

901 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2012

— each individual candidate for promotion is “fully qualified”. … The MCR is established under the Commandant of the Marine Corps (the "Commandant").

Bkoreck v. United States

376 F. Supp. 494 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 1974

Furthermore, there has been a total failure to establish a showing of irreparable harm or the lack of an adequate remedy at law. … Chief Justice Stone speaking for the Court observed: “No person is immune from prosecution in good faith for his alleged crimi *496 nal acts.

United States v. Nutrition Service, Inc.

227 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1964

The defendants have no qualified personnel; *384 7. The defendants filed no new drug -application for the product; 8. … It is not generally recognized among experts who are qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety of drugs; 14.

DANIELS v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2022

And, in any event, is the Officer protected by qualified immunity? The answers both are in the affirmative. … Plaintiff also cannot show a violation of clearly established law.

Boyd v. United States

482 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1980

The following facts are established beyond dispute between the parties. On or about December 8, 1977, there was a burglary of Plaintiff’s home. … Therefore, a claim was clearly made to the Department of Treasury, the appropriate agency, by Boyd, in conformance with 28 C.F.R. § 14.2 (a).