Case law

ZAKEN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2026

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (rejecting the traditional Rule 12(b)(6) standard established in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 (1957)). … While Plaintiff’s allegations do not clearly articulate the role of each of the participating Defendants, the allegations support that each either exerted excessive force or failed to intervene in the assault by other officers

WASHINGTON v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2022

As such, they are protected from suit by Eleventh Amendment immunity unless either exception to state sovereign immunity applies. … Pennsylvania, however, has not waived its sovereign immunity defense in federal court, see 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8521(b), and Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Quern v.

Gray v. Creamer

376 F. Supp. 675 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1974

In the first instance, no such fees can be imposed on the state because of the state’s sovereign immunity, which has not been waived by virtue of the state paying the costs of transcribing the record of this proceeding, or … Clearly inflammatory writings advocating violence, insurrection or guerrilla warfare against the government or any of its institutions. 4. Judicially defined obscenity. B.

MANIVANNAN v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2023

Claims are subject to clearly defined filing requirements and statutes of limitations. Without grounds for equitable tolling, the failure to adhere to those requirements bars recovery. … These “extreme circumstances” were a “significant change in [Manivannan’s] working conditions,” thus qualifying as a personnel action under the statute. See Sistek v.

MCGRATH v. GREATER JOHNSTOWN WATER AUTHORITY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2024

The Plaintiffs state that the “Affidavit of Service clearly reflects that a representative of [GJWA] was served at 640 Franklin Street, Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15901.” (Id.). … However, the Court need not concern itself with this issue in this case, where all four factors that the Court considers clearly favor setting aside the entry of the Default.

Lichtenstein v. UNIV. OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER

805 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2011

The Supreme Court has explicitly outlined how this is accomplished: The defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the [adverse employment action.] … Here, Defendants have clearly and repeatedly stated that Ms. Lichtenstein was terminated as a result of her absences, tardiness, and difficulty accommodating her scheduling requests.

Durst v. United States

409 F. Supp. 1046 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1976

We know from the Settlor’s correspondence that he desired to establish an irrevocable trust and to pay the gift tax chargeable thereon, both of which are inconsistent with any intent to reserve powers to himself to change … Similarly the tax court, construing a will as a whole, found that since the purpose of the trust was to qualify for the marital deduction an ambiguous description of the powers of the trustees would not authorize the withholding

Cincinnati Insurance Companies v. Pestco, Inc.

374 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2004

Clearly, the two are distinct, and trade dress cannot be read into the Umbrella Policy exclusion for trademark infringement. … Cincinnati further argues that the false advertising claim does not qualify as an “occurrence” under the Umbrella Policy, thus Cincinnati has no duty to defend.

Marshall v. Brunner

500 F. Supp. 116 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1980

Brunner, his wife, qualified as executrix of Robert H. Brunner’s estate and was substituted as the new defendant in this case. 3. Decedent, Robert H. … Many of the helpers who went to the dump performed work there, made additional trash pickups on the return trip from the dump to decedent’s establishment, and performed additional duties upon their return to the establishment

Shawley v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

784 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1992

Clearly the actions taken by Bethlehem Steel Corporation constitute discrimination in the commonly accepted sense of the word, that is, the act of making distinctions or perceiving differences between individuals or groups … For purposes of defendant’s motion, it is legally proper (and reasonable in fact) to conclude that the plaintiffs were well-qualified to return to work.

WOODARD v. EVANS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 10, 2023

Cnty. of Orange, 844 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Like the interests of criminal defendants, the fundamental liberty interests of parents and their children in their familial relationship has long been clearly established … Judge McVay Is Likely Immune From Suit Turning to the issue of Judge McVay’s immunity, the necessary analysis is brief.

Dunkle v. Commissioner of Social Security

829 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2011

If the claimant cannot qualify under the listings, the analysis proceeds to the fourth and fifth steps. … If the claimant cannot do his past work or other work, he qualifies for benefits. 493 U.S. at 525-26 , 110 S.Ct. 885 .

Security-Peoples Trust Company v. United States

238 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 1965

The court held that the words “his needs” established an ascertainable standard. … Clearly, the surest way to avoid such problems is to name some ether person trustee and to give the widow no powers over the husband’s property.” Andrew H.

Quinones-Cedeno v. Hutchinson

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2024

P. 56 based on the affirmative defenses of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and qualified immunity. /d. … Because the record demonstrates that Quinones-Cedeno failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding any claim raised in his Complaint, the Court will not reach the Defendants’ qualified immunity or substantive

MICHELIN v. ODDO

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2024

Thus, the Court agrees with Michelin that this habeas case, which challenged the legality of his civil immigration detention without a bond hearing, qualifies as a “civil action” under the EAJA. B. … It is Respondents’ burden to establish that the government’s position was substantially justified.6 Pierce v.

BOND v. MCKEAN COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2020

Ct. 1955 (rejecting the traditional Rule 12 (b)(6) standard established in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). … “Rather, a claim is frivolous only where it depends ‘on an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic or delusional” factual scenario.” Dooley v.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Glickman

370 F. Supp. 724 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1974

The standards to be applied in arriving at a showing of prima facie de facto discrimination, and the significance of such a finding, have been clearly set out earlier in this Opinion. … That the examination was not validated does not mean, of course, that those persons who failed it, black or white, are in fact qualified for the position of firefighter. 16 .

FINNEGAN v. BURBULES-FINNEGAN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 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). … “[F]Jailure to establish any element in [a plaintiff’ s] favor renders a preliminary injunction inappropriate.” Jd. at 153.

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC

880 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 2012

The statute likewise clearly protects against employment decisions made “because of [an] individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a)(1)-(2). … The analysis here is not directed to whether the plaintiffs will succeed in their claim; rather, the purpose of the analysis is to “establish!]

FASSETT v. ROME

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 16, 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).