Case law

United States ex rel. Bartlett v. Tyrone Hospital, Inc.

234 F.R.D. 113 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2006

Clearly, damages are not necessary to make a claim of conspiracy under the FCA, and therefore to recover the civil penalty and costs. … Therefore, the Court finds that the intracorporate immunity doctrine applies to Quorum thereby preventing any allegation of conspiracy under Count IV between Tyrone and Quorum.

Skerski v. Time Warner Cable Co.

168 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2000

Rule 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against the party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’ … Second, written job descriptions, issued both by Time Warner and its predecessors in interest, clearly identify climbing as a job requirement. See Docket No. 11, EXS. F & G.

Axtell Ex Rel. Axtell v. LaPenna

323 F. Supp. 1077 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1971

Testimony in the instant case clearly establishes that no disorder, disruption or interference with the educational process were caused by Lawrence Axtell’s violation of the regulation in question. … Long ago, Judge Cooley said, “The right to one’s person may be said to be the right of complete immunity: to be let alone.” Richards v. Thurston, supra, 424 F.2d at 1285 .

United States Ex Rel. Singh v. Bradford Regional Medical Center

752 F. Supp. 2d 602 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2010

Raspanti stated: “We know of no case that more clearly establishes a hospital’s attempt to extract an exclusive referral stream from a physician.” (Id.) … This was clearly a valid written agreement. (Defendants’ Joint Opposition, at 15-16.)

Erie County Retirees Ass'n v. County of Erie, Pa.

140 F. Supp. 2d 466 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2001

For those retirees who did not qualify for SelectBlue or Securi-tyBlue the County provided benefits under the traditional indemnity plan. … Clearly, the purpose of the equal benefit or equal cost standard is to encourage employers to spend equally on benefits for older and younger persons ...

MASSEY v. STEFANNUCI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2025

A claim is frivolous if it: (1) is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory and/or, (2) contains factual contentions that are clearly baseless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). … July 21, 2025) (noting that claims for money damages against state employees in their official capacities were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity).

King-Smith v. Aaron

317 F. Supp. 164 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1970

She is fully qualified and certified to teach in the public schools of Pennsylvania. … We think this a clearly unwarranted aspersion on the defendants.

Hoffman Electric, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co.

754 F. Supp. 1070 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1991

We conclude that the commonality element has been established. 3. … As can be clearly seen, that case is distinguishable because of the close professional relationship (same law firm) between the class representative and the class attorney. See also Susman v.

Henderson v. Plymouth Oil Co.

13 F.2d 932 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1926

The cases in Pennsylvania clearly establish that the mere affirmation of a fact, though made at the time of the sale and although relied upon by the purchaser, is not a warranty. … Whatever may have been FarquhaFs mental attitude in tho situation, it is perfectly clear that the conveyance of the 50,000 shares purchased for him temporary immunity from arrest on the 26th.

SHALLENBERGER v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2021

Similar to the absolute immunity from Section 1983 liability that is granted to prosecutors for their actions in prosecuting criminal cases, child welfare workers “are entitled to absolute immunity for their … Metzger are covered by absolute immunity. Defendants also argue that the Amended Complaint does not establish personal involvement by Ms. Smith in the alleged violation of Ms.

MANLEY v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2025

by the Constitution when establishing the judicial power of the United States.” … And as explained above, case law clearly rejects the notion that state officials acting in their official capacity are subject to liability under § 1983. See also Best v.

Persico v. Sebelius

919 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2013

FERC, 736 F.2d 747, 751 (D.C.Cir.1984) (plaintiffs “planning insecurity” was insufficient to establish hardship); Bethlehem, Steel Corp. v. … Next, any decision clearly requires further factual development as the current controversy at this time is based on contingent facts.

FMC Corp. v. Holliday

731 F. Supp. 710 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1989

FMC clearly does not provide the required benefits or motor vehicle insurance referred to in §§ 1711, 1712 or 1715 of the Pennsylvania law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1711, 1712, 1715. … The statute clearly states that the term “programs, group contracts or other arrangements” is not limited to the listed corporations.

Price v. Levers

475 F. Supp. 937 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1979

“The procedure under the *942 appraisal statutes is qualified in its application to ‘any real estate foreclosure proceeding, S.C.Code, Section 45-88 (1962), (S.C. … Even assuming that defendant elected to forego filing for an appraisal and bankruptcy in 1974 because he relied upon plaintiff’s default in the prior action, such reliance was not reasonable in light of well established principles

Stewart v. University of Pittsburgh Western Psychiatric Institute & Clinic

521 F. Supp. 253 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1981

Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) as establishing the criteria for a prima facie case of discrimination in employment. … The plaintiff was qualified to do the job; and 4. The plaintiff was satisfactorily performing his job.

MARTINEZ v. LENIHAN

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. … In addressing and presiding over Plaintiff’s myriad actions before her, Judge Lenihan was clearly acting in her judicial capacity as a federal magistrate judge.

Haggerty v. Selective Service System, Local Board No. 15

325 F. Supp. 69 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 1971

In any event, for the purpose of determining merely whether the registrant’s records are to be subjected to further review, the criteria established cannot be regarded as vague or standardless. … This duty clearly was delegated to the Surgeon General, and it was well within his discretion to determine not only what physical defects are to be regarded *79 as disqualifying, but also in what circumstances.

JOHN DOE(S) AND JANE DOE(S) v. PITTSBURGH REGIONAL TRANSIT

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

To establish an ADA disability discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show “(1) that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodations … That is, it is a “physiological disorder or condition” affecting John Doe 2’s immune system. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1).

Feather v. United Mine Workers of America

494 F. Supp. 701 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1980

The evidence clearly shows that the BCOA first proposed the offending language contained in Article 11(g) on November 10, 1974. … In Consolidated Express, the Circuit held that both the Rules which deal with work acquisition and the Dublin Supplement which dealt with a customer boycott were not immunized from antitrust scrutiny.

Wecht v. Marsteller

363 F. Supp. 1183 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1973

Marsteller, 1 an employed full-time Police Officer of the Traffic Division of the Police Department of the City of Pittsburgh, from continuing alleged deprivations, occurring under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities … The record in this case establishes that the particular officer involved has been guilty of such violations and with such frequency that they cannot be dismissed as simply isolated instances of intemperance; nor is it apparent