Case law

Hoffman Ex Rel. Estate of Hoffman v. Borough of Avalon

446 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2006

essential elements of a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities … Therefore, Plaintiff has fallen well short of carrying her burden to establish a policy, practice, or custom that could render Avalon liable under § 1983. V.

West Virginia Housing Development Fund v. Sroka

415 F. Supp. 1107 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1976

Since the plaintiff has obviously not consented to a revocation, clearly Sro-ka’s letter could not operate as such. … It has also been held that such a claim by Sroka against HUD must fail because of the doctrine of governmental immunity. See Modular Technics Corp. v.

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.

Fultz v. Neighborhood Legal Services

654 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1987

Section 1620 establishes a system for the priority allocation of resources among competing claims. Moreover, § 1621 mandates the establishment by local legal aid chapters of an administrative client grievance procedure. … is a member of the class of possible beneficiaries for whose benefit the statute was enacted, it does not follow that there is a federal right to such assistance where the priority allocation of inadequate resources is clearly

ENOCH v. PERRY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2020

However, the doctrine of sovereign immunity, established by the Eleventh Amendment, protects states, such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from suits by citizens. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. … Congress has not abrogated the immunity regarding Simmons’ claims, nor has Pennsylvania waived this grant of immunity. See 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 8521(b).

MITCHAM v. P. MABINS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2025

(B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” … 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).

JAMES v. BRANT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 2024

(See ECF No. 15 at 11, 15) (arguing that the “Transcript establishes that Officer Garlock did not appear for or participate” in the hearing); (arguing the transcript “further establishes that . . . … But nowhere in the video can James clearly be seen kicking Officer Garlock.

City of Beaver Falls v. Economic Development Administration

439 F. Supp. 851 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 1977

It should only be granted when clearly justified by the circumstances of the case. … In this case the City of Beaver Falls complains that it will lose one-half of the $484,000 funding which it originally anticipated and to which it established entitlement under the provisions of the Act.

Weatherbee Ex Rel. Vecchio v. Richman

595 F. Supp. 2d 607 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2009

By adopting the MCCA, Congress sought to protect community spouses from becoming impoverished while simultaneously barring financially secure couples from sheltering their resources in order to qualify for Medicaid. … The Court was clearly concerned that under the “theory” espoused by the DPW, a whole variety of income streams could improperly be treated as countable resources. Id. at 219. That concern is no less present here.

VAVASES v. CALIFORNIA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2020

Sears denied her application “on the grounds that she had not worked enough hours to qualify for FMLA leave,” despite the fact that Mrs. … As to the first element, “‘liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.’” Goodson v. Kardashian, 413 Fed.

Kepler v. Mirza

102 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1999

He establishes operating policy and administers, supervises, evaluates and monitors the activities of the Bureau to insure compliance with applicable federal and state law. Finally, Defendant James E. … In light of the above analysis, we need not address the other issues raised by the parties, which include preclusion of the claim by the availability of post-deprivation remedies, supervisory liability and qualified immunity

United States v. Clifford

543 F. Supp. 424 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1982

Miron also stated that he did not consider the method to be suitable for testimonial purposes to establish certainty of authorship, although he stated expert testimony could be used to point out to a jury how unusual certain … The proposed use of this type of evidence under these circumstances is clearly unreliable and untrustworthy. See testimony of Dr. Miron.

KOUGH v. TRAMARKI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2025

immunity should be granted as to Tramarki only as it relates to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need; and e Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity by … A history of dilatoriness is generally established by repeated “delay or delinquency.” Adams, 29 F.3d at 874.

SCHRECENGOST v. COLOPLAST CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2019

First, the proffered witness must be qualified as an expert. Id. … Plaintiffs argue they can establish causation because Dr.

STRADER v. HOME DEPOT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2025

In fact, an employer can be liable for the unauthorized acts of their employees when they are “clearly incidental to the master’s business.” Brumfield v. … Therefore, the only written communications alleged here are absolutely privileged by judicial immunity.

Papurello v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

144 F. Supp. 3d 746 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2015

Kane, 841 A.2d at 1045-47 (providing that such “explicit” and “clear ... qualifying language” satisfies Fedas and its progeny). … [that] would qualify the [phrase ‘actual cash value’] to be derived by applying a deduction for depreciation”).)

CRAWFORD v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2020

Kolman, to the Court: “What I think [entitlement to qualified immunity is] a matter of is the provision of or the overseeing of appropriate health care that is in accordance with the Eighth Amendment.”); Trans. 9/26/19 … The legal lens through which this jury finding is viewed is immaterial; regardless of which constitutional violation was at issue, Plaintiff clearly failed to prove that Mr.

HENRY v. SMITH

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

It is not necessary to discuss qualified immunity because this is not a close case. The duty to comply with an order to oppose a motion for summary judgment applies in full force to pro se litigants, see Mala v. … The opposition sets it out, and then the movant has a fair chance in its reply papers to show why the respondent's evidence fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

GREENBERG v. MCEWEN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2025

But these allegations do not plausibly establish that the officers’ use of must make support payments); Mikhail v. Kahn, 991 F. Supp. 2d 596, 616 (E.D. … Ross, 62 F.4th 1248, 1258 (10th Cir. 2023) (granting qualified immunity to rangers who “reasonably suspected they were approaching the subject of a manhunt and his unidentified passenger” because, even though rangers lack

OLIVER v. ERIE COUNTY

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

The Act prohibits discrimination against an “otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794. … To make out a prima facie case, a plaintiff must establish that: “(1) [she] is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) [she] was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs