Case law

O'Dell v. Department of Public Welfare of Penn.

346 F. Supp. 2d 774 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2004

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Seption 504, an employee must. demonstrate the following: “(1) that she or he has a disability; (2) that she or he is otherwise qualified to perform the -essential functions … Conversely, the Defendant asserts the following: “[the Defendant] clearly accommodated [the Plaintiff] and returned him to work on July 15, 2002”; “the record clearly demonstrates that the [Defendant] was involved in the

Stevens v. Horn

319 F. Supp. 2d 592 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 2004

First, it instructed that the federal court must decide exactly what is the applicable clearly established law determined by the Supreme Court. Williams, 529 U.S. at 390 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 ; see also Hameen v. … At the time the state courts reviewed this claim, Strickland’s familiar two-prong test was the “clearly established federal law” applicable to ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Pellegrino v. McMillen Lumber Products Corp.

16 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 1996

In a pretext case, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing her prima facie case by demonstrating that she: (1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified to perform the job at issue; (3) was dismissed or otherwise … Plaintiff responds that all three McMillen Companies are clearly integrated enterprises for purposes of ADEA.

Stafford v. Roadway Transit Co.

70 F. Supp. 555 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1947

It was contended that the immunity of the husband, who was not subject to suit by his wife should be extended to the husband’s employer. … Although the law exempts the husband from liability to the wife for the damage, others may not hide behind the skirts of his immunity.

Stilley v. University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education

968 F. Supp. 252 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 1996

Bradford Area School District, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, citing cases dating from 1952, held that the right to be free from an invasion of personal security was clearly established by 1980. 882 F.2d 720 … Consistent with this established law, plaintiff Lori Stilley’s allegations in this case rise to the level of violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

J. E. Faltin Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Eazor Express, Inc.

172 F. Supp. 175 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 1959

Clearly, if defendant is correct in his contention that clause 1 of the contract limits the lessee’s liability to that which it would bear in the absence of a written contract, then the provisions of clauses 3.5 and 5, quoted … This view is fortified by § 236 (c), Restatement of the Law of Contracts which provides that “where there is an inconsistency between general provisions and specific provisions, the specific provisions ordinarily qualify

TORRENCE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2026

App'x 725, 730 (3d Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (noting that “[a] privately retained attorney clearly does not act under color of state law, and ... … Thus, having failed to plead state action, Plaintiff cannot establish Mr. Logue’s liability under Section 1983. The complaint also fails to state a viable cause of action based on Mr.

Pennsylvania Bank & Trust Co. v. Hanisek

426 F. Supp. 410 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 1977

The court holds that this qualifies for treatment as deprivation of property without due process of law. … It thus has been held that the New York Legislature could establish a higher set of court costs for the courts in New York City than in other counties in that state. Manes v.

Taylor v. Heckler

637 F. Supp. 935 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1986

Hodgson’s evaluation is qualified throughout, but the AU does not acknowledge this. As to plaintiff’s ability to lift, Dr. Hodgson commented: “fluctuating strength: 20 pounds at all times. 20, at least, intermittently.” … Certain of plaintiff’s infirmities have been established more clearly than others.

Consolidation Coal Co., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

406 F. Supp. 1292 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 1976

In the case sub judice, the endorsement contains a qualifying phrase. To accept the position advanced by plaintiff would require the court in effect to delete the qualifying phrase from the endorsement. … The jury’s verdict established that the railroad’s failure to provide the employee a safe place to work had caused his injuries.

PULLEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2026

July 27, 2006) (“It is well established that “the review and denial of the grievances and subsequent administrative appeal conducted does not establish personal involvement by those Defendants in the alleged underlying … The immunity applies not only to the state itself, but also to state agents and state instrumentalities.

United States Ex Rel. Patosky v. Kozakiewicz

960 F. Supp. 905 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 1997

The petitioner thus is required to make a stronger showing than that needed to establish prejudice ... … For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has failed to establish this claim and the petition should be denied.

NEWSOME v. TEAGARDEN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 3, 2020

A § 1983 plaintiff has two avenues for establishing supervisory liability. … See ECF No. 37 at 8 (noting that Hearing Officer Benner’s actions at the disciplinary hearing do not “qualify as personal involvement for the Plaintiff’s excessive force claim for the purposes for § 1983.”).

Trunzo v. Citi Mortgage

876 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2012

Then, on January 4, 2011, Homeowners received a response to a “Qualified Written Request” 8 submitted to Seterus on November 17, 2010. … It is difficult to imagine language that would advise a consumer any more clearly that PHS is (a) a debt collector (b) attempting to collect a debt.

HARR v. WASHINGTON AREA HUMANE SOCIETY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2025

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine “shield[s] government officials performing discretionary functions . . . … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, a court must determine both whether the plaintiff has shown a violation of a constitutional right, and whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged

OWUSU ANSAH v. LAWRENCE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2025

In Neitzke, the Supreme Court identified two types of legally frivolous complaints: (1) those based upon indisputably meritless legal theory, and (2) those with factual contentions which are clearly baseless. … An example of the first is where a defendant enjoys immunity from suit, and an example of the second is a claim describing a factual scenario which is fanciful or delusional. Id. at 328.

MARTINEZ v. MCCORMICK

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

As such, courts are afforded authority to dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id.; Denton v. … (plaintiff’s claim that he had uncovered evidence of a conspiracy by the former mayor to commit sabotage and espionage in order to establish ecclesiastical law and in some way interfere with U.S. commerce were

United States v. Real Property Known & Numbered As 2847 Chartiers Avenue

142 F.R.D. 431 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1992

Attorney Work-product Privilege The government contends that the Holmes Report is privileged from discovery by the attorney work-product privilege, established in Hickman v. … It would clearly serve no purpose to rehash that issue here.

United States v. Bailey

439 F. Supp. 1303 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 1977

Stewart, therefore, was clearly unavailable for purposes of application of the Federal Rules of Evidence in general and 804(b)(5) in particular. … The hearsay exception sub judice is clearly as reliable as other forms of hearsay which satisfy the Confrontation Clause absent any opportunity for cross examination. Mattox v.

TROTMAN v. SMITH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2021

immunity. … retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.”