Case law

Hudson v. Thornburgh

770 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 1991

Section 1985(3) protects individuals from conspiracies to deprive them of equal protection of the law and equal privileges and immunities under the law. … Here, the defendants have clearly demonstrated, and we do find, that at the time PAL was disbanded, the defendants’ actions were motivated by a sincere belief that the course the PAL had undertaken threatened the security

Hou v. COM. OF PA., DEPT. OF EDUC.

573 F. Supp. 1539 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 1983

The § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and the damages claim under § 1981 were dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction, immunity and failure to state a claim. … The oft-repeated four-part test for establishment of a prima facie case is that plaintiff ...

United States v. Parcel of Real Property Known as 6109 Grubb Road

708 F. Supp. 698 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1989

We conclude that the relevant inquiry herein, is that which was clearly provided for by Congress— whether Jane DiLoreto can establish by a preponderance of evidence that she did not have knowledge of or consent to Richard … Therefore, as a matter of law, Jane does not qualify as an innocent owner as contemplated in § 881(a)(7), and her interest in both properties is forfeitable. IV.

KHODARA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. EX REL. EAGLE v. Beckman

91 F. Supp. 2d 827 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1999

The qualifier “unless” implies that “active” landfills are a co-existing subset of “proposed” landfills. … Schaadt as an expert qualified to opine on the stated subject matter, failed to qualify his opinion as a lay witness, and failed to establish a factual foundation for the opinions being asserted.

GRAZIANO

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

He is a qualified individual with a disability. “[M]ental illness qualifies as a disability under’ the ADA.” Williams, 117 F.4th at 528 (alteration in original) (quoting Disability Rts. N.J., Inc. v. … The sovereign immunity afforded by the Eleventh Amendment provides states and state agencies — including the DOC — with immunity from suit in federal court unless the immunity has been abrogated by Congress or waived by

ROBISON v. TESTA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2021

The qualified immunity defense requires consideration of two questions: Whether the facts “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [the … Because the facts do not support a constitutional violation, qualified immunity shields Testa from liability.

United States v. Standefer

452 F. Supp. 1178 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 1978

That corrupt motive does not enter into a prosecution under § 201(f) or § 201(g) it has been clearly held in many cases. See U. S. v. … Clearly, the intent necessary to establish a violation of this section may be present whether or not there was an agreement between appellant and Santiago regarding particular acts Santiago had performed or would perform.

LILLEY V. DCD HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SENATOR TOOMEY

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

Civilly I believe I was cross-examined as slandered and given no opportunity for qualified immunity based on my own opinion of my incrimination or absolute prosecutorial immunity based on my plea agreement … Judicial immunity is an “immunity from suit, not just from an ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Halls Motor Transit Co.

609 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 1985

The moving party has the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of fact exists, Butz v. … Following Ricks , we believe that progress through an established grievance procedure, negotiated for and established by a collective bargaining process, does not, in and of itself, result in “new” acts of discrimination.

LILLEY v. ERIE CLERK'S OFFICE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 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

PIRL v. RINGLING

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2023

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of “qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does … Ringling’s conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established in July 2019.

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated November 14, 1989

728 F. Supp. 368 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1990

The regulations clearly state that DPW will be governed by final court order. 55 Pa.Code 105.4(b)(3)(iv). … This Court is persuaded that a qualified common-law privilege should be accorded in the circumstances of this case.

SEQUINO v. RICHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2025

benefit from the protection of immunity. … Here we have a contract that clearly laid out the terms of the ownership, possession, maintenance, and liability for Academic Avenue and all those rights belonged to RSD, not PHCC.

Kuhar v. Greensburg-Salem School District

466 F. Supp. 806 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1979

Kuhar is very well qualified to serve in his present post. … Kuhar is admittedly well qualified.

SHERLE v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2022

A court “may not grant the motion unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. … Bell Atlantic Pennsylvania, 271 F.3d 491, 503 (3d 'In Betts, the Third Circuit explained that “Pennsylvania and federal law establish that the [Department of Public Welfare] is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because

Crivelli v. General Motors Corp.

40 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 1999

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, as we must, the evidence established the following. … least more qualified than Floyd McElwain.

District 5, United Mine Workers v. Weiss (In re Weiss)

129 B.R. 51 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1991

The focus of inquiry is on whether state law confers non-negotiable rights on employers or employees: ... independent of any rights established by contract, or, instead, whether evaluation of ... … Clearly a review thereof is necessary to determine whether it applies to debtor and, if it does, whether he is personally liable for any violation thereof. Equally clearly, the WPCL is pre-empted by federal law.

Miskovitch v. Hostoffer

721 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2010

The Due Process Clause shields from arbitrary or capricious deprivation only those facets of a person’s existence that qualify as “liberty interests.” Hewitt v. … Defendants argued, inter alia, that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

Hopson v. Dollar Bank

994 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1997

“A denial of a promotion, even if discriminatory, does not alone suffice to establish constructive discharge.” Ezold v. … Dollar Bank devotes substantial effort to the argument that Noel was more qualified for the new position than was Hopson.

LITTLE v. TUBE CITY RENAISSANCE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2019

The primary question in deciding a motion to dismiss is not whether the Plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but rather whether he or she is entitled to offer evidence to establish the facts alleged in the complaint. … Because no further factual allegations would alter the above-analysis, any amendment is ' Sheriff Mullen also moves for dismissal based upon qualified immunity and the Rooker- Feldman doctrine.