Case law

Taylor v. Onorato

428 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2006

Had Congress intended to allow any registered voter to also bring a claim to enforce section 301 it would have clearly said so. … There is no reason for the court to find, however, that the qualified voters and the selected poll workers of Allegheny County, collectively or individually, lack the intellectual ability to follow clearly stated directions

Whipple Ex Rel. Whipple v. Warren County School District

133 F. Supp. 2d 381 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2000

As a result, the Plaintiff cannot establish a pendent state law cause of action under Count VI of the Complaint. … Clearly there are other remedies available to assure compliance with the Public School Code provisions relating to the education of exceptional children, and it is unnecessary to impose money damages as a means of “carrying

Block v. Biddle

36 F.R.D. 426 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1965

“The ‘assured clear distance ahead’ rule is not merely a statutory obliga *429 tion but an established principle of law of negligence in Pennsylvania, and is applicable to vehicles on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.” … The Court stated: “There is no evidence in the record that contradicts or qualifies the above testimony which indicates clearly that the accident was due solely to the negligence of (defendant’s employee).”

NGUIEN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2021

To state a claim under either statute, a plaintiff must prove that he (1) is disabled, (2) is otherwise qualified for the services, programs, or activities sought or would be qualified if the defendant had made reasonable … and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.

MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD. v. Newson

783 F. Supp. 2d 769 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 2011

The benefits to a player who qualifies under this section “will be equivalent to those benefits paid under the compensation law of the state in which his club is located” and determined under the non-injury grievance (“NIG … See Stomir-Brache Decision at 42-43 (observing that none of the agreements in question “clearly and unmistakably waives any right covered employees might have to file workers’ compensation claims in states other than Florida

BARKSDALE v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

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

Indeed, Barksdale has not identified any service, program, or activity offered by the DOC and for which he was qualified and from which he was excluded. … The DOC is also immune from Barksdale’s state-law claims under state-law sovereign immunity. Pennsylvania law affords the Commonwealth and its agencies and employees broad immunity from most state-law tort claims.

ALLISON v. TATE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … A qualified immunity analysis involves two questions: whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

McDowell Nat. Bank of Sharon, Pa. v. United States

419 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1976

Within the test established by Ithaca Trust Co. v. … Therefore, since this court has determined that the testator’s intent was to clearly establish and maintain a charitable remainder interest in the trust corpus, it is unnecessary to proceed further with regard to the restrictions

Kirby v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

563 F. Supp. 248 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1983

U.S. et ah, 675 F.2d 60 (C.A.3, 1982), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs had standing to sue and that the Secretary of HUD’s decision to fund a subsidized housing project for the elderly was not immune … From uncontradicted affidavits in support of the defendants’ motion it is established that the project involved in the case at bar was approved by HUD on September 19, 1978.

Schwarzwaelder v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

467 F. Supp. 2d 495 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2006

establish an inability to perform any one of the regular job duties, it may be unreasonable for the Claims Administrator to deny benefits. … (apparently asserting, less clearly, but taking the paragraph as a whole, that the claim was denied because Plaintiff failed to establish that she was precluded from performing any one of her regular duties); id. at 3 (disputing

United States v. Cross

899 F. Supp. 1410 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1995

The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that defendant should have been permitted to present evidence to establish this estoppel defense. … Defendants argue that since the Government’s allegations are that Defendants attempted to fix cases, rather than that Defendants actually fixed cases, such allegations do not encompass a clearly established constitutional

MILLER v. BEDFORD COUNTY

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

Qualified Immunity The second objection that the Court addresses is Defendants’ objection pertaining to the issue of qualified immunity. (ECF No. 39 at 23-24). … A reasonable individual cannot “believe that [his] actions comported with clearly established law while also believing that there is an excessive risk to” a resident of the prison facility at which he works “and failing

Hardware Mutual Ins. Co. of Minn. v. CA Snyder, Inc.

137 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1956

It is also established that in Pennsylvania : “As between private individuals in their personal affairs, one may be indemnified against the results of his own or his servants’ negligence, if the intention so to do is clearly … We think that the use of a qualifying adjective to “accident” is significant.

Chedwick v. UPMC

619 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2007

The Supreme Court has clearly rejected the language in Zubi which limited the application of § 1658 to entirely new statutes enacted after December 1, 1990. … He clearly alleges that UPMC’s failure to accommodate his disability stems from its failure to reassign him to a vacant position.

Donohue v. Custom Management Corp.

634 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1986

However, Plaintiffs have not established a prima facie case of age discrimination because they have clearly failed to establish that “younger employees were treated more favorably”, Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. at … This contention was clearly addressed in Moorhouse v.

ERBE Electromedizin GmbH v. CANADY TECHNOLOGY LLC.

529 F. Supp. 2d 577 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2007

Once the threshold levels of materiality and intent have been established, the trial court is required to weigh them. … Any color, other than beige or red, would be clearly visible during endoscopic procedures.” (Docket No. 211, p. 20, citing, Ex. 25, ¶24 at Docket No. 207-27).

Langfitt v. United States

321 F. Supp. 360 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1970

Plaintiff, the duly qualified executor of the estate, timely filed a federal estate tax return wherein he reported no federal estate taxes payable. … She stated clearly and distinctly that the bequest was to be used to finance the initiation fees and dues of needy members of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity.

United States v. Grosso

225 F. Supp. 161 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1964

However, one participant in the raid does qualify under the terms of § 1445. … Allegheny County Detective Botula had jurisdiction to arrest anywhere in Allegheny County and qualified as an “officer of justice” while arresting in Jefferson Borough.

Braden v. University of Pittsburgh

343 F. Supp. 836 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1972

Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 , 86 S.Ct. 1783 , 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1966), was not intended to and should not be construed to apply to discrimination on any basis other than race: The legislative history of the 1866 Act clearly indicates … 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

Taylor v. Monongahela Railway Co.

155 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1957

The matter was clearly for the jury.” Saganowich v. Hachikian, 1944, 348 Pa. 313, 316 , 35 A.2d 343, 345 . … His testimony definitely established that there was brain damage. It definitely established that there was a loss of vision.