Case law

Douglas v. Brookville Area School District

836 F. Supp. 2d 329 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2011

The sexual contact in this case, however, was clearly severe enough to implicate KE.’s Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity. Craig v. … The evidentiary record does not establish a pattern of constitutional violations perpetrated by District employees.

Bulkoski v. Bacharach, Inc.

1 F. Supp. 2d 484 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1997

IV To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that he belongs to the protected class; (2) that he was qualified for the position; (3) that he was … Clearly, any claim by plaintiff of overzealous supervision would not qualify as an intolerable condition warranting a finding of constructive discharge in this case. See Clowes v.

Estate of Thomas v. Fayette County

194 F. Supp. 3d 358 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2016

The experts are surely “qualified.” See Pineda, 520 F.3d at 244 . … An individual may violate a plaintiff's constitutional right, but liability often depends upon meeting a "fault” requirement or getting past various "immunity” doctrines.

MOORE v. ALLISON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2020

Defendants counter that the force used in each instance was reasonable under the circumstances and that their actions are protected by qualified immunity.’ … However, Defendants are free to reassert the doctrine of qualified immunity m response to an amended complaint, should one be filed.

Buckley v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

782 F. Supp. 1042 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1991

As the chief executive officer of a publicly held company with thousands of shareholders, Robert Buckley clearly was a high corporate official. … Buckley also must establish other matters not now at issue, such as publication.

TICE v. WILSON

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

Dismissal of the Complaint Against Attorney Defendants Scibetta and Vogel is Warranted Because They Are Immune from Suit It is well-established that prosecutors acting in their official prosecutorial … Tice’s Motion for Accommodations Based on Disability and Appointment of Highly Qualified Defense Counsel (Doc. 27) is denied.

THELEN v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2021

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity”). … , or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.’”

Coyne v. Marquette Cement Manufacturing Co.

254 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1966

Decedent was a structural iron worker of many years’ experience and was a qualified welder. He was told that Dravo’s welding supervisor would be in charge. … The evidence established that Dravo gave no warning of the danger. Dravo’s fourth reason for judgment n.o.v. is without merit.

Keystone Dedicated Logistics v. Flexaust Co., Inc.

709 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2010

carriers, it was in breach of its contract; and as to this matter there are clearly questions of material fact. *395 2. … But see Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (more clearly attesting that: "Flexaust was not obligated to refrain from using other carriers.

Gavin v. Peoples Natural Gas Co.

464 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1979

The Supreme Court has delineated certain practices which are clearly prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the Constitution: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither … We noted earlier the difficulty in determining what makes a belief or feeling qualify as a religious one.

CARR

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2026

Lunardini also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, even if his conduct violated Carr’s constitutional rights, those rights were not clearly established. … Because I conclude that Carr has not plausibly alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, I need not reach whether any such rights were clearly established. I will dismiss Carr’s claims with prejudice.

Hart v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC

350 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1972

Plaintiffs argue that they should be treated as “applicants” for the union offices and urge us to rule that since they could conceivably “qualify” for jobs (i. e. secure the requisite number of Local nominations to be certified … The prohibitions in this chapter shall be limited to individuals who are at least forty years of age but less than sixty-five years of age.” 29 U.S.C.A. § 631 . 6 . “ . . . .it was clearly the intent of the Congress that

United States Steel Corporation v. United States

385 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1974

forbidden discrimination, would almost always qualify for such an award.” … to the prevailing ‘party’ does not mean they should be made to prevailing respondents as liberally as to prevailing claimants. * * * Awards to respondents should be limited to unusual situations, such as defense against clearly

Caldon, Inc. v. Advanced Measurement & Analysis Group, Inc.

515 F. Supp. 2d 565 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2007

Noerr-Pennington Immunity Defendants also assert that Cal-don’s claims are barred by the NoeirPennington doctrine. … However, misrepresentations made in only in regulatory submissions do not qualify as commercial speech under the Lanham Act. See In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., No.

EDMONDS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2022

Judicial immunity will not apply only if the judge acts with “clearly no jurisdiction over the subject-matter,” id. at 356 n.6 (quoting Bradley v. … Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 522 (5th Cir. 1985) (“It is a well established rule that where a judge’s absolute immunity would protect him from liability for the performance of particular acts, mere allegations that he performed

Whittaker v. County of Lawrence

674 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2009

The conscience-shocking concept “duplicates no traditional category of common-law fault, but rather points clearly away from liability, or clearly toward it, only at the ends of the tort law’s spectrum of culpability.” … Because the second amended complaint fails to allege a violation of the United States Constitution, the Court need not consider the Defendants’ alternative arguments concerning the defenses of qualified immunity and "good

Sollon v. Ohio Casualty Insurance

396 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2005

Sollon qualified for LTD benefits, then that he did not. … Sollon's case, the Qualifying Period was October 19, 1999, through April 19, 2000. 9 . Mr.

Citizens Coal Council v. Matt Canestrale Contracting, Inc.

40 F. Supp. 3d 632 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

Associate Member Organizations are also entitled to elect a qualified delegate to serve on the Coordinating Committee. Id., Art. IV, § IV.2. … When that test is applied, MCC argues that CCC cannot establish standing through its Standing Witnesses.

Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Bedford Reinforced Plastics, Inc.

227 F.R.D. 382 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2005

Moreover, the Plaintiff objected to the production of “information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work-produet immunity and/or other privileges or immunities, including work performed by attorneys.” … “[I]n order to establish the defense of inequitable conduct, defendants must establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the information not disclosed to the Patent Office was material, and (2) that by not disclosing

MERGL v. WALLACE

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

Plaintiff then arranged to have another qualified attorney represent his client at the hearing in front of Wallace. (Id.) … Eleventh Amendment Immunity Defendants’ final argument in favor of dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint is that they are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.