Case law

SMITH v. WASHINGTON AREA HUMANE SOCIETY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2020

The Court cannot find that Section 5557 provides immunity. The Court reaches the same conclusion as to Defendants’ attempt to invoke qualified immunity. … Defendants themselves state that “qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

IBM Credit Corp. v. Compuhouse Systems, Inc.

179 B.R. 474 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1995

In reaching this conclusion, the Bankruptcy Court found that only two of the debts owed to petitioning creditors qualified under Section 303(b)(1) and these debts did not amount to the minimum $5,000. … It is not clearly erroneous ... [because the Bankruptcy Court] had a distinct factual basis to premise its decision on.”

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.

SZERENSCI v. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURT 14-3-02

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2021

Courts also consider whether the defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, which signifies an understanding that the plaintiff seeks to sue the defendant in his individual capacity. See Atwell, 274 F. … App’x at 118 (citing Melo, 912 F.2d at 636) (recognizing that raising defense of qualified immunity, which is only available when governmental officials are sued in their personal capacity, shows a defendant’s understanding

Putsakulish v. Califano

448 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1978

Putsakulish does not qualify for an irrebuttable presumption of total disability. II. The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 prescribes several presumptions for use in determining disability. … Furthermore, where a ventilatory study does not establish that the miner is totally disabled, total disability may nevertheless be found if the other relevant evidence (§ 410.414(c)) establishes that the miner has a chronic

Drwal v. BOROUGH OF WEST VIEW, PA

617 F. Supp. 2d 397 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2009

Prima Facie Case “In order to make out a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA and PHRA, a plaintiff must establish that [he] (1) has a ‘disability,’ (2) is a ‘qualified individual,’ and (3) has suffered … Because plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that he was a qualified individual with a disability, that he has a record of such disability, or that he was regarded as having such a disability, he can

MURPHY v. MEDLIN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2025

With regard to Judge Taylor’s recommendation that the official capacity claims against the DOC Defendants be dismissed because such claims are barred by qualified immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, Plaintiff does not … offer a specific objection and instead simply poses a question that appears to be rhetorical, asking how improvements can be made to DOC Policy if Pennsylvania’s Eleventh Amendment provides qualified immunity to all state

BRANDON v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2023

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted where “‘the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved’ and that it is ‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” … In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions

Citizens Coal Council v. Matt Canestrale Contracting, Inc.

51 F. Supp. 3d 593 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2014

. § 6903 (27), are clearly not frivolous, and thus, the motion to dismiss should be reviewed under the Twombly/Iqbal standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions. … Moreover, CCC argues that jurisprudence from other courts of appeals clearly establishes that the statutory definition of solid waste contained in 42 U.S.C. § 6903 (27) applies to an ISE citizen suit brought to abate an imminent

Kilmer v. Central Counties Bank

623 F. Supp. 994 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1985

. § 1441 , must be strictly construed, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is upon the removing party. See American Fire & Casualty Co. v. … A federal right or immunity must be ascertained as an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action for the lawsuit to be maintained in federal court. See Gully v.

LEWIS v. GOOGLE, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2021

In Bennett, the court set forth a three-part test to determine whether Google can establish immunity. … Courts that considered similar issues found that Google qualifies as an “interactive computer service” provider. Bennett, 882 F.3d at 1167 (citations omitted).

RIVERA v. LITTLE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2025

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … See also Wayne, 2022 WL 17993131, at *10 (rejecting defense of qualified immunity because it was well established that prolonged solitary confinement satisfies the objective prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis); Williams

Motorists Mutual Insurance Companies v. Great Lakes Laboratories, Inc.

687 F. Supp. 198 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 1988

Wollesen asked for a ride to an after-hours establishment called “Pap’s A.M.” … Specifically, in order to qualify as an “insured” under the policy, Christopher Salchak had to have been operating the car with the permission of a named insured.

HOCKETT v. WILKINSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2024

Moreover, even if Plaintiff’s criminal convictions could co-exist with his excessive force claim, the police officers would be entitled to qualified immunity. … When the elements of Plaintiff’s convictions are considered along with the summary judgment evidence of record, it is clear that the police officers’ conduct did not violate a clearly established law.

Lynch v. Torquato

228 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 1964

of the State capital at a neutral spot where one Harris had established a ferry over the Susquehanna. … There simply were no jobs for them, and they were ordinarily not qualified for whatever few jobs there were.

Sherback v. Wright Automotive Group

987 F. Supp. 433 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1997

The Court must view the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists rests with the movant. … Hearsay evidence contained in affidavits and deposition testimony may be sufficient to survive summary judgment motion unless such evidence clearly would not be admissible at trial. Clark v.

United States v. Smith

34 F. Supp. 3d 541 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2014

That opinion concludes, [T]he jurisdiction established by § 3145(c) is appellate jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction to act independently. … However, Defendant has failed to clearly establish exceptional reasons to qualify her for release under § 3145(c). Accordingly, Defendant must be detained pursuant to § 3143(a)(2). IV.

Forbes Health Sytems v. Harris

504 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1980

However, Congress clearly intended that HEW’s obligation to approve and verify extended beyond the cost-finding methods so as to accompany the state’s proposed rate-setting methodology. … The testimony of Milton Dezule establishes that the changes proposed by the 80 Reg. were never presented to HHS for review.

BENDER-MATHIS v. THE CITY OF ERIE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity protects [government officials] who make wrong but reasonable judgment calls absent clearl established law.” … Aug. 28, 2025), Qualified immunity requires a two-prong analysis. Anglemeyer v. Ammons, 92 F.4 184, 188 G3 Cir. 2024).

First Liberty Ins. Corp. v. McGeehan

381 F. Supp. 3d 478 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2019

If adoption is taken to mean 'person *485 related by adoption,' then another meaning is clearly possible. Id. (italics in the original). … Their established residency, however, was in Virginia.