Case law

A.H.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2026

Specifically, Magistrate Judge Brown recommended that this Court grant St. … The filing of timely objections requires the district judge to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Sample v.

Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union

490 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1980

Norfolk and Western Railway filed an action to Vacate and Remand an Award of a Special Board of Adjustment established under the Interstate Commerce Act. The Court remanded the matter to the Board for reconsideration. … Defendant, however, raises the case of Long Island RR Co. v.

Parish v. Upmc Univ. Health Ctr. of Pittsburgh

373 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2019

Our Court addressed this argument in the medical residency context in Brown v. Hamot Medical Center . No. 05-cv-32E, 2008 WL 55999 , at *7-9, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 467 , at *21-26 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 2, 2008), aff'd , 323 F. … See Brown , 323 F.

Mack v. Yost

979 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2013

To support his free exercise argument, Mack cites Brown v. … But unlike the government actors in Brown v.

Story v. Kindt

970 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 1997

V at 1634.) Story admitted meeting Aleñe Smith and Nadine Brown on the bus and in Tampa, introducing himself as Makif and hearing Davis and Jones introduce themselves as Karmu and Malet. (TT Vol. V at 1634-35.) … Testimony of Aleñe Smith and Nadine Brown Officer Robert W. McKay testified to the unavailability of two witnesses, Aleñe Smith and Nadine Brown.

Silberman v. United States

333 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 1971

Gray v. United States, 410 F.2d 1094, 1097 , C.A. 3, 1969. … Gray v. United States, supra. The plaintiffs base their claim upon Kramer v. United States, 406 F.2d 1363 , 186 Ct.Cl. 684 (1969).

J.L. ex rel. J.L. v. Ambridge Area School District

622 F. Supp. 2d 257 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2008

In support, Defendant relies on Collinsgru v. Palmyra Board of Education, 161 F.3d 225, 236 (3d Cir.1998). However, in Winkelman v. … See, W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 495 (3d Cir.1995); C.M. v. Board of Education of Union County Regional High School Dist., 128 Fed.Appx. 876, 880 (3d Cir.2005) (not precedential); Ridgewood Bd. Of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel.

Employer Trustees of W. PA Teamsters v. Union Trustees of W. PA Teamsters

149 F. Supp. 3d 544 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2016

(citing Mahoney v. Fisher, 277 F.2d 5, 6 (2d Cir.1960); Barrett v. Miller, 276 F.2d 429, 431 (2d Cir.1960); Singleton v. Abramson, 336 F.Supp. 754, 757 (S.D.NY.1971)). … Hodges v. Holzer, 707 F.Supp. 232, 235 (M.D.La.1988) (citing Ader v. Hughes, 570 F.2d 303, 307 (10th Cir.1978)).

Young v. 1200 Buena Vista Condominiums

477 B.R. 594 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2012

Hornick v. I.R.S., 252 B.R. 897, 899 (W.D.Pa.2000) (Lee, J.) (citing In re Brown, 951 F.2d 564 (3d Cir.1991)). III. Factual Background There are no disputes with respect to the facts of this case. … United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240 , 109 S.Ct. 1026 , 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) (citing Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v.

Burns v. N & L Realty Corp.

160 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1958

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 , 61 S.Ct. 1020 , 85 L.Ed. 1477 ; Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 . … Brown v. Moore, 3 Cir., 247 F.2d 711 ; Perry v.

Knauss v. Gorman

433 F. Supp. 1040 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1977

In Foley v. … Lee v.

Snowden v. Hodgson

33 F. 847 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1888

Mason v. The Wm. Murtaugh, 3 Fed. Rep. 404; The Wm. Cox, 9 Fed. Rep. 672; Connolly v. Ross, 11 Fed. Rep. 342; The Bordentown, 16 Fed. Rep. 270. … This is not set up in the answer, and neither Brown nor Sloan testifies to any such agreement or understanding.

DRIVER OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS I, LP v. ADAMS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2023

See Reilly v. … Astrazeneca AB v. Dr. Reddy's Lab'ys, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d 744, 753 (D. Del. 2016) (quoting In re Brown, 951 F.2d 564, 568 (3d Cir.1991)).

Ament v. PNC National Bank

825 F. Supp. 1243 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1992

See Franchise Tax Board v. … Krashna v. Oliver Realty, Inc., 895 F.2d 111, 115 (3rd Cir.1990). See also Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 2841 .

Brennan v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC

501 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1980

I am reminded here of what was held in Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057, 1059 , C.A. 7, 1980. … While I am in agreement with the philosophy laid down in Brown v.

Mukamal

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2026

Wise v. Biowish Techs., Inc., Civ. No. 18-676-RGA, 2019 WL 192876, at *3 (D. Del. Jan. 11, 2019) (quoting Albert v. Alex. Brown Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. Civ. A. 762-N, Civ. A. 763-N, 2005 WL 2130607, at *13 (Del. Ch. … Under Pennsylvania law, “[i]t is an elementary principle of corporation law that the declaration of dividends out of net profits rests in the discretion of the board of directors.” Knapp v. Bankers Sec.

Willow Crossing Dairy Farm, Inc. v. Hardin

327 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 1970

In Switchmen’s Union of North America v. … National Labor Relations Board v. Cheney Cal. Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385, 388 , 66 S.Ct. 553, 554 , 90 L.Ed. 739 (1946).

Peerless Insurance v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School

19 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2014

Hinchey, 464 F.Supp.2d 425 (M.D.Pa.2006) (citing Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pa. Milk Marketing Board, 298 F.3d 201 , 210 n. 12 (3d Cir.2002))). … Co. v. Brown, 834 F.Supp. 854, 858 (E.D.Pa.1993).

Hoots v. Pennsylvania

535 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1982

The district court may enjoin a state or school board action which hinders or impedes the effectiveness of a remedy ordered to vindicate constitu *1197 tional deprivations. United States v. … Scotland Neck City Board of Education, 407 U.S. 484 , 92 S.Ct. 2214 , 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972); North Carolina Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43 , 91 S.Ct. 1284 , 28 L.Ed.2d 586 (1971); see also Griffin v.

Johnson v. McCrackin-Sturman Ford, Inc.

381 F. Supp. 153 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 1974

. § 1604 , the Federal Reserve Board promulgated § 226.8(b)(4) of Regulation Z, which sets forth the same disclosure requirement: “(b) In any transaction subject to this section, the following items, as applicable, shall … The only case dealing directly with the question of whether an acceleration clause is the type of disclosure required by the Act is Garza v.