Case law

VOORHIS v. DIGANGI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2024

Defendants, in turn, assert defenses of absolute immunity, qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim. Each will be addressed to the extent necessary to resolve Defendants’ motions. 2. … Unlike in Guest, the allegedly false allegations in the instant case clearly implicate Defendants’ prosecutorial function.

PERKEY v. ALBERT GALLATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2024

Factual overlap between the pleadings alone is not enough, as the original complaint must provide fair notice of the amended claim to qualify for relation back. … Initially, it bears noting that high public official immunity is an affirmative defense, and Mr. Pegg thus bears the burden of establishing its applicability. Ferrone v. Onorato, 439 F. Supp. 2d 442, 455 (W.D.

Courson v. Bert Bell NFL Player Retirement Plan

75 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1999

The Supplemental Plan was also established through collective bargaining between the NFLMC and NFLPA. Id. … We further note that the facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable from those in Sweeney, which involved a player who became addicted to certain narcotics that were prescribed by team physicians.

United States v. Berger

9 F.2d 167 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1925

Ed. 830 , in considering the sufficiency of an indictment, the court said: “‘A rule of criminal pleading, which at one time obtained in some of the circuits, and perhaps received a qualified sanction from this court in United … Impressed as I am with the view that the possession count in each of the information fails to charge an offense against the United States, as measured by the long and well established rules of criminal pleading and procedure

Gomez v. Lewis

292 F. Supp. 560 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1968

Employee status is clearly required in order to comply with the statutory exemption permitting payments into the fund. … In Pavlovscak, supra, it was held immaterial that plaintiff attempted to establish that a pension was paid to another applicant in circumstances very similar to his.

United States v. Cinemette Corp. of America

687 F. Supp. 976 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1988

However, if we discover a “split” agreement which involved clearly predatory or coercive conduct, we might well proceed criminally there because of the special nature of the conduct. … 2 In short, contrary to defendants’ contentions, Viking Theatre does not stand for the proposition that in this Circuit a split agreement, regardless of its factual circumstances, constitutes legitimate business conduct immune

BELDING v. RUSSO

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2025

Russo were the only actions not protected by prosecutorial immunity. In Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. … There are functions attendant to the district attorney’s position that are more than administrative, but less than prosecutorial, which do not qualify for absolute immunity, and the district attorney is thus acting as a

United States v. Stankewicz

124 F. Supp. 27 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1954

Our fight is not with carnal weapons or physical things, but with principalities, the Bible is our guide as to whether we are or are not to share in war, it clearly teaches us not to.” … for exemption within the meaning of the Act since he has failed to establish that his beliefs include opposition to participation in war in any form.

LUDWIG v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2024

Judgment will be granted if “the movant clearly established there are no material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). … waive the immunity.

Diehl v. CSX Transp., Inc.

349 F. Supp. 3d 487 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2018

These provisions establish a degree of care that Defendant must exercise. See Zimmerman , 706 F.3d at 179 . … The evacuation clearly impaired Plaintiff's ability to use her land. 12 See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821D (Am. Law.

HELLER v. HAMMERLE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2023

Following discovery, Plaintiffs have failed to adduce evidence to establish otherwise. … immunity arguments which Plaintiffs, curiously, have failed to address in their opposing brief.

VO v. WETZEL

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

immunity. … Given the decision to dismiss on alternative grounds, no discussion of qualified immunity is necessary at this time.

CRESPO v. HIGGINS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2021

By comparison, a prosecutor is entitled to qualified immunity for such actions taken in an investigative or administrative capacity. Zerby v. … “[T]o earn the protections of absolute immunity, a defendant must show that the conduct triggering absolute immunity clearly appear[s] on the face of the complaint.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Mascioli v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc.

610 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2009

Termination from employment qualifies as an “adverse employment action.” See Metzler v. … In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove the following: (1) he [or she] is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he [or she] is otherwise qualified to

BROWN v. WILSON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2024

Defendants argued that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on Plaintiff’s failure to establish his claims and because of the doctrine of qualified immunity. (Docket Nos. 270, 272).

Mitsubishi Corp. v. Goldmark Plastic Compounds, Inc.

446 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2006

Finally, the exclusive remedy clause does not run afoul of the policy disfavoring provisions which effectively immunize parties from liability. … Accordingly, the exclusive remedy clause does not improperly immunize any party from liability and must be enforced as clearly and unequivocally written.

Sabo v. UPMC Altoona

386 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2019

And Defendant does not challenge that Sabo was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job. … To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for the position in question; (3) that she suffered an adverse

United States v. Richardson

393 F. Supp. 83 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 1974

The legislative history clearly spells out the Congressional purpose in enacting the new statute of limitations: “Extension of Statute of Limitations on Prosecution For Non-Registration to Five Years after a Registrant’s … The state makes no contract with criminals, at the time of the passage of an act of limitation, that they shall have immunity from punishment if not prosecuted within the statutory period.

Roy v. Jones

349 F. Supp. 315 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 1972

Some of the reasons for this well-established law are discussed in Butler v. … Such a rule is clearly not arbitrary and capricious nor is it violation of plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under the law.

Troha v. United States

692 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2010

Although a public recreational trail could be described as a roadway for the transportation of persons, the nature of the usage is clearly different. … First, the language in Moody relied upon by the Plaintiffs is clearly dicta.