Case law

SIMMONS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2025

A frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when … As with a false arrest claim, “the absence of probable cause is an essential element” that Plaintiff cannot establish without establishing the invalidity of the ensuing conviction. Pinkney v.

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.

United States v. Litman

547 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1982

This assertion is clearly erroneous. … The defendants’ final two requests for materials are denied because discovery of this information is clearly subject to the timetable established by the Jencks Act. IY. Mr. Litman’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars Mr.

Kerth v. Hamot Health Foundation

989 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1997

Kerth to establish a viable practice in Erie. … Presumably, Plaintiffs have taken this position because professional peer review actions are entitled to qualified immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, HCQIA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101 et seq.

Safran v. United Steelworkers of America

132 F.R.D. 397 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1989

Co., Inc., 99 F.R.D. 279, 282 (E.D.La.1983) (“courts have not required that the class be so clearly ascertainable that every potential member can be readily identified at this stage of the litigation.”). … However, the absent class members who were younger and who had less seniority were years away from qualifying for such benefits.

SHEROD v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2020

qualified countermeasures . . . or qualified pandemic or epidemic products . . . that are applicable to the public health emergency or potential public health emergency . . .”. 42 U.S.C.A § 247d(b)(2)(C). … However, the Act also provides an exception to the immunity provision for covered persons which reads as follows: Subject to subsection (f), the sole exception to the immunity from suit and liability

Daugherty v. Washington Square Securities, Inc.

271 F. Supp. 2d 681 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2003

(M.D.Fla.2001) (holding that the investors were not customers because they did not have accounts or other evidence of a traditional customer relationship with the financial firm and they did not have evidence that they established … Henderson also qualifies as an "associated person” based on his contractual employment relationship with defendant.

Kepple v. GPU INC.

2 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 1998

At this point, then, plaintiff has established a prima facie case of sex and age discrimination because Ms. Kla-vuhn was selected for a position for which he was also qualified. … Plaintiff has adduced evidence to establish that, as a Fundamentalist Christian, he belongs to a protected class and that, despite being qualified, he was denied a position at Genco.

Ohio Barge Line, Inc. v. Dravo Corporation

326 F. Supp. 863 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1971

Analysis of the Complaint therefore establishes that certain of the counts are cognizable in admiralty and others fail to qualify. Kaufman, et al. v. … On the other hand, there is some qualifying language in Swift & Co. Packers v.

Williams v. Shenango, Inc.

986 F. Supp. 309 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1997

Congress clearly contemplated that the proper framework for analyzing a retaliation claim based on circumstantial evidence under § 2615(a)(2) of the FMLA is the shifting burdens of proof analysis established in McDonnell … The use of the discretionary “may” clearly indicates that certification is not mandated in every instance. Rather, the employer is left to decide whether or not to initiate a policy requiring certification.

Amato v. UPMC

371 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2005

This well established presumption is .grounded in the elementary proposition that the principal function of a legislature is not to make contracts, but to make laws that establish the policy of the state. National R.R. … Clearly, such a scenario would be inconsistent with the language of the statute, as § 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code does not authorize such private third party claims.

Geneva College v. Sebelius

929 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2013

Establishment Clause Claim The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. … plans; (B) provides for the establishment of a Small Business Health Options Program ... that is designed to assist qualified employers in the State who are small employers in facilitating the enrollment of their employees

Phillips v. NORTHWEST REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS

669 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2009

We need not therefore address the parties’ arguments regarding the degree of culpability nor Defendants’ alternative arguments that Tush and Craig are entitled to qualified immunity. … Let us assume for sake of argument that NRC is not a local agency entitled to immunity under the Pennsylvania law.

Munich Welding, Inc. v. Great American Insurance

415 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2006

The Supreme Court in Wilton and the court of appeals in Summy clearly stated that this court has “unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants.” … Plaintiff has clearly manifested a desire to litigate this matter in state court.

Savko v. Port Authority

800 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1992

When a plaintiff brings a disparate impact case individually rather than on behalf of a class, the plaintiff must also establish that she was a “qualified” applicant and must establish that her individual circumstances entitle … As discussed earlier, the plaintiff has established that she was “qualified” for the job that went to Lutheran. 24.

Walworth Co. v. United Steelworkers of America

443 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1978

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FACTS Plaintiff, Walworth Company, is a corporation qualified to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a manufacturing plant in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in … To establish a cause of action, i. e. a violation of the Labor Management Relations Act, the requisite proof is identical.

United States v. Com. of Pennsylvania

902 F. Supp. 565 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1995

, and deprive residents of Ebensburg of such rights, privileges or immunities.”). … Alvarez’s testimony clearly establishes that utilizing a videotaped EEG is one option, and is a course of treatment to which many in the medical community aspire.

Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp.

52 F.R.D. 510 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 1971

The prerequisite of impracticability of joinder is clearly satisfied. It is equally clear that the instant suit presents questions of law and fact which are common to the class. … That the plaintiff’s attorney be “qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation” is indispensable. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra, 562 .

Gagliardi v. Fisher

513 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2007

It is clearly established that “[p]robable cause does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction.” Adams v. … While the latter may raise serious constitutional problems, the former clearly does not. It is not clear what other bases plaintiff purports to rely on for the purpose of establishing a Fourteenth Amendment violation.

CARNEVALE v. DIGIOVANNI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2022

a prosecutor may engage in ‘police investigative work’ that is entitled to only qualified immunity.” Id. at 274 n.5. … The alleged conduct triggering absolute immunity must “clearly appear[] on the face of the complaint.” Id. at 160 (quoting Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 776 (3d Cir. 1989)).