Case law

WRIGHT v. ALLISEN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2024

based on inmate misclassification as appropriate for an implied cause of action under Bivens, and extension of Bivens to such a claim in this case is unsupported; and, alternatively, (3) all Defendants are entitled to qualified … immunity because no “clearly established” right to a particular inmate classification or procedure for assigning PSFs existed at the time of their actions.

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.

In re Irwin

268 F. 162 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1920

At the time of the execution of these papers in the city of Rochester, the said car was in said place of business of the bankrupt, where it remained until after the trustee in bankruptcy had duly qualified. … Clearly he should not have been deprived of the carpet by the creditors' of his brother, just because his brother occupied the same house with him. Renninger v. Spatz, 128 Pa. 524 , 18 Atl. 405 , 15 Am. St.

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).

General Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers, Local Union No. 249 v. Potter-McCune Co.

412 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 1976

It is clearly a situation where the contract specifically requires one thing, while the practice that developed with the concurrence of the union was in contradiction to that language. … This, it did not do prior to January 31, 1975, when the company acted on the basis of what it considered to be established procedures.

LATTANZO v. DUNBAR TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2024

It is well established that by itself, § 1983 does not create any rights, and instead provides a remedy for violations of those rights created by the Constitution or federal law. See Baker v. … The Housing Quality Standards required that qualifying apartments have a smoke detector and an alternative means of exist in case of a fire. Id.

ZUBIK v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2025

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts of Appeals that could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Shovlin v. Klaas

555 B.R. 500 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2016

Once a plan is established in accordance with Section 1322, a Bankruptcy Court then decides whether to confirm that plan under 11 U.S.C. § 1325 , entitled “Confirmation of Plan.” … for a hardship discharge and moreover, they cannot qualify for a discharge at all.

LILLEY v. DANERI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2021

Because Plaintiff seeks an award of damages from District Attorney Daneri, his claims are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Jmbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); Walker v. … Under the circumstances presented, these claims are clearly based on an indisputably meritless legal theory and thus will be dismissed as legally frivolous. See Newton v. City of Wilmington, 206 F.

Faulk v. Ludwig

732 F. Supp. 591 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1990

“While the principle that private action is immune from the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment is well established and easily stated, the question whether particular conduct is ‘private,’ on the one hand, or ‘state … Moreover, considering the cumulative effect of all the facts that establish some relationship between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and CMHCC in the present case, plaintiff clearly has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating

Dunkel v. Warrior Energy Services, Inc.

304 F.R.D. 193 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2014

Plaintiffs assert that they have established that they are similarly situated to other employees of Defendants. … As one district court has noted, “[a]n award of costs to a prevailing defendant in an FLSA case is clearly possible and is not merely theoretical.” Creten-Miller v.

Werry v. Horton

666 F. Supp. 744 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1987

“Clearly, an arrest without probable cause is a constitutional violation actionable under § 1983 ... [T]he question of probable cause in a § 1983 damage suit is one for the jury.” Patzig v. … Plaintiff further alleges that the policies, acts and omissions of the Municipal defendants have deprived him of rights, privileges and immunities.

DELVAL v. TOWN OF MCCANDLESS

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

immunity. . . ."). … Next, plaintiffs contend that their state law claims are not barred by the applicable statutes of limitation because the Civil Complaint "clearly establishes" that the tortious conduct took place from August 7, 2017, through

Byrnes v. Herion, Inc.

764 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 1991

Plaintiff maintains she was at all times better qualified than her male predecessor, that her duties were more numerous, and that the primary, if not sole basis for the salary disparity, between herself and David Kosar was … employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for

McClendon v. Turner

765 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 1991

. § 1915 (d), however, is quite limited, available only “when the claims are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or on clearly baseless factual contentions.” Id.; Neitzke v. … “It is firmly established that a defendant in a § 1983 suit acts under color of state law when he abuses the position given to him by the State.” West v.

Firich v. American Cystoscope Makers, Inc.

482 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1980

The system established by the Act moves malpractice litigation out of the courts and into an arbitration proceeding. … These corporations do not qualify as health care providers under the definition set forth in section 1301.103. Rather, they come within the term “nonhealth care provider.”

Davis v. Crothall Services Group, Inc.

961 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2013

Similarly, Plaintiff has not clearly established that the position was not eliminated such that Defendant had an obligation to displace a ROM to properly reinstate Davis. … Clearly, an employer may, at times, reemploy the veteran in a different location. Therefore, the job location is not sufficient in itself to render the position unacceptable under USERRA.

Ross v. Borough of Dormont

937 F. Supp. 2d 638 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2013

This is clearly insufficient. See Kasper v. Cnty. of Bucks, 514 Fed.Appx. at 214-15 , 2013 WL 563342 , at *3. C. … ADEA Claim (Count III) To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is at least 40 years old; (2) he suffered an adverse employment decision; (3) he is qualified

Ferencz v. Medlock

905 F. Supp. 2d 656 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2012

This clearly satisfies the “shared attorney” method of imputed notice. See Muhammed, No. 11-5004, 2012 WL 748411 , at *3, 2012 U.S. Dist. … Under Pennsylvania law, the term “personal representative” is defined as “the executor or administrator of the *672 estate of a decedent duly qualified by law to bring actions within this Commonwealth.” Pa. R. Civ.

MOFFETT

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

A claim is frivolous if it is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory and/or contains factual contentions that are clearly baseless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). … .; however, that immunity does not apply to tortious actions involving “actual malice or willful misconduct.” See id. at §8550,.