Case law

Hartman v. Switzer

376 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 1974

The claim that legal tender is only gold and silver and the money system of the United States is unconstitutional is clearly spurious. United States v. … Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 , 61 S.Ct. 767, 770 , 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941), "The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, United States v.

SIMPSON v. HORNING

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2023

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.” … Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from

LEUTHE v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2024

The Supreme Court reasoned that Congress clearly intended veterans’ disability benefits to be used, in part, for the support of veterans’ dependents. Id. at 630–31, 635. … Therefore, it is well-established by United States Supreme Court precedent that Mr.

Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.

69 F.R.D. 382 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1975

In reaching its decision, the Wetzel court clearly relied, at least in part, on Arkansas Education Ass’n. v. … Clearly, numerosity renders joinder impracticable in this case.

Harris v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

151 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2015

Such evidence includes: KBR’s 10-K from fiscal year 2007 which clearly states that Texas is the state of its headquarters; the affidavit of Lowes delineating the relationships between the KBR entities and stating that KBR … Individual soldiers volunteering for military service such as SSG Maseth clearly lack an opportunity to negotiate for such concessions' or protections from the United States’ See Feres, 340 U.S. at 146 , 71 S.Ct. 153 .

Walsh v. Pittsburgh Press Co.

160 F.R.D. 527 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1994

Plaintiffs have defined a clearly discernable class of nearly 300 individuals. 1 Joinder of all of these people, most of whom are not presently represented by counsel, would be impracticable. 2. … With respect to the second element, there is no doubt that Plaintiffs attorneys are qualified, experienced and competent. We find, therefore, that Plaintiffs’ counsel will adequately represent the class. 5.

MENAS v. WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2025

Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the law did not clearly establish state actors could be liable for private harm to an individual after his release from custody); Collignon v. … Qualified Immunity Because the Court has determined that Officers Skunda and Kier are entitled to summary judgment as to all claims against them, we need not address their qualified immunity defense.

MARTINEZ v. SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2024

The Superior Court is also entitled to judicial immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s claims. … In addressing Plaintiff’s request to file an interlocutory appeal in his criminal case, the Superior Court was clearly acting in its judicial capacity and clearly has jurisdiction over such an appeal.

United States v. Hamilton

322 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1971

The Government’s evidence, if believed, clearly was sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. … Clearly, this testimony was not proffered by the prosecution in its case in chief. Defendant’s third contention therefore is without merit.

Manfred ex rel. Estate of Gray v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

106 F. Supp. 3d 678 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2015

The Railroad Civil Immunity Statute provides the following relating to the duty of care owed to a trespasser: (a) General rule. … Breach of Duty Having established that Gray was a trespasser, the Court must determine whether Defendants’ actions amounted to willful or wanton misconduct. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8339.1.

Petruska v. Gannon University

350 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 27, 2004

The Establishment Clause prohibits laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const, amend I. In Lemon v. … New York, 251 F.3d 84, 93-94 (2d Cir.2001) (failure of state defendants to raise Eleventh Amendment immunity as a defense in EEOC proceedings did not constitute a “waiver of immunity” in a subse *679 quent federal court action

Marshall v. AT & T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1

804 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2011

then his/her claim would not qualify for benefit payments under the Plan. … Eastman Kodak Co., 113 F.3d 433, 439-40 (3d Cir.1997). *416 In order to qualify for STD benefits under the Program, Plaintiff must establish that “because of illness or injury, [he] [is] unable to perform all of the essential

Howe v. Scheibel

47 F. Supp. 295 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1942

Justice Drew, are clearly and succinctly set fort-h in the first three paragraphs of the syllabus, which reads as follows: “1. … Under the facts as disclosed by the evidence offered by the plaintiff and the different inferences which can be reasonably drawn therefrom, the Court cannot say that such evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff was guilty

United States v. Illig

288 F. 939 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 15, 1920

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 … The authorities clearly establish that the finding of probable cause is a judicial conclüsion, to be drawn by the magistrate from the facts presented to him.

GRAHAM v. PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CENTER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2024

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. 1 Pa. … “Exceptions to sovereign immunity are to be 12 Rather than focusing on sovereign immunity, Graham’s brief argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, which is irrelevant here.

BARD v. BATES GROUP LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2023

Prepared exhibits by Fuller clearly refute this not to be the case.” (Id. at 6). … Prepared exhibits by Fuller (which were used at trial in 2013) clearly refute” this assertion. (Id. at 6).

Cerutti v. FRITO LAY, INC.

777 F. Supp. 2d 920 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2011

Frito-Lay asserts that SAFETEA-LU only affected the definition of qualifying employers, and had no effect on qualifying employees. … Section 231.43(d)(3) clearly requires that OT pay be computed at “Vh times” the rate established by the agreement or understanding. Id. Under a plain reading of that regulation, Frito-Lay cannot have it both ways.

National Ass'n for Neighborhood Schools of Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Board of Public Education

497 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1980

Title IV clearly does not restrict state school authorities in the exercise of their discretionary powers to assign students within their school systems.” … No State shall make or enforce any law which will abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

Bellas v. CBS, INC.

73 F. Supp. 2d 493 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 1999

Since January 1, 1997, CBS has persisted in denying Special Retirement Pensions to those who, like Plaintiff, have otherwise qualified under the pre-1994 version of the Plan. … Nevertheless, the Complaint clearly incorporates the Plan documents and includes attachments of the same. The Plan itself specifies that CBS is both the “plan sponsor” and the “named fiduciary.”

Pears v. Spang

718 F. Supp. 441 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1989

Plaintiff clearly establishes a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). … Just as clearly, defendant articulates a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for plaintiffs dismissal—a reduction in force and retention of allegedly better qualified or better performing employees.