Case law

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,.

United States v. Tilley

786 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2011

Defendant and the government clearly stipulated to particular loss amounts for the purpose of determining defendant’s sentencing range under the guidelines. … Clearly, under the plea agreement there is no limitation on defendant’s ability to present evidence concerning restitution.

Eimers v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

785 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1992

Plaintiffs disparage the testimony of Officer Hall because she is not qualified as an expert, and admits that she knows nothing about motorcycle tires. … The danger must be so apparent or so clearly within common knowledge that a user would appreciate the danger to the same extent that a warning would provide. Andrulonis, 924 F.2d 1210 , 1222.

Schoeppner v. General Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania

417 F. Supp. 453 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 1976

That a labor organization is a proper party to file an EEOC charge on behalf of its members is well-established as is the right of a labor union to file suit in a United States District Court under Title Vil of the Civil … The foregoing analysis suggests that unions are similar to individuals in that both unions and individuals qualify as “persons”, and as “persons aggrieved” under Title VII.

OWUSU ANSAGH v. SUPERIOR HOME CARE AGENCY

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

Plaintiff’s complaint is based on factual contentions which are clearly baseless. … has not established a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted.

Wildi v. ALLE-KISKI MEDICAL CENTER

659 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2009

Moreover, I am qualified to and would be comfortable with managing physician practices. (Wildi Aff. ¶ 23.) … The defendant must prove one of the four affirmative defenses “so clearly that no rational jury could have found to the contrary.” Del. Dep’t of Health, 865 F.2d at 1414.

Cessna v. Rea Energy Cooperative, Inc.

258 F. Supp. 3d 566 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2017

The Act does not establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme for rural electric cooperatives; it establishes a framework for providing loans “for the purpose of furnishing and improving electric ... service in rural areas … It is also worth noting that § 1717.617 does not establish exclusive conditions.

PINKNEY v. MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2020

However, the alleged facts fail to establish a claim under that theory as well. … Liability under this cause of action is “reserved by the courts for only the most clearly desperate and ultra extreme conduct.” Hoy, 720 A.2d at 754.

JOHNSON v. AT&T

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2023

An example of the first is where a defendant enjoys immunity from suit. Id. An example of the second is a claim describing a factual scenario which is fantastic or delusional. Id. at 328. … Johnson’s Complaint cannot establish subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal question or diversity, his Complaint will be DISMISSED.

Steiner v. Equimark Corp.

96 F.R.D. 603 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1983

It is well established that suits on behalf of shareholders under the federal securities laws are prime candidates for class action treatment and that Rule 23 should be liberally construed to that end. Sley v. … In this regard, we note that counsel for Plaintiffs are qualified and experienced in securities litigation.

Zalevsky v. Steele

78 B.R. 100 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1987

We find that these considerations do not establish an abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court in setting the sale aside. … Zalevsky, after receiving notice of the Sheakley’s motion, qualify as reasonable.

TATE v. MAYOR SCHEMBER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2019

Here, however, the Plaintiff’s automobile was admittedly inoperable, so Plaintiff clearly was not dependent upon the vehicle as a means of transportation. … Similarly, any claim predicated on a theory of intentional 6 Given this result, the Court need not presently address Defendants’ defense of qualified immunity.

JOHNSON v. FRANCIS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2021

Johnson, Jr. commenced this proceeding by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and attaching to it a Complaint seeking to establish a violation of a federal statute and international law by John Paul Francis, Joe … An example of the first is where a defendant enjoys immunity from suit. Id. An example of the second is a claim describing a factual scenario which is fantastic or delusional. Id. at 328.

DUDLEY v. COUNSELOR SMICK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2025

Alternatively, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. These arguments are addressed in turn. a. … immunity and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

United States v. Salome

870 F. Supp. 648 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1994

These authorities clearly negate the inference that § 3145(c) should be applied by the district courts in the first instance because of some perceived inability of the circuit courts to make factual findings. … Furthermore, the length of time he will be incarcerated pending sentencing and/or appeal is common to all defendants and, therefore, does not qualify as exceptional.

HOLDEN v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2021

July 2, 2019) (“To the extent that Alvarez is raising a substantive due process claim, his allegations are clearly premised on First Amendment violations, as set forth above. … The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution grants to the states immunity from suit in federal court by private parties. U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

United States v. Fronek

231 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1964

Zadylak worked for no salary, it was nevertheless a matter for the jury’s determination to see, if for nothing, whether as a matter of generosity, although this in itself could not be immunizing. … Viewed in the light of the foregoing authorities, the evidence in this ease clearly established that Martin J.

Rice v. First Energy Corp.

339 F. Supp. 3d 523 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2018

Moreover, the evidence here does not establish that NRG Energy owned or operated the Elrama Power Plant. … Thus, the undisputed evidence clearly shows that NRG Energy never owned or operated the Elrama Power Plant.

Hicks v. Tech Industries

512 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 2007

In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is over forty; (2) he is qualified for the position in question; (3) he suffered an adverse employment … The term “substantial” in the phrase “substantially limits” “clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way with performance of [a major life activity] from qualifying as disabilities.”

ERIE COUNTY RETIREES v. County of Erie, Penn.

91 F. Supp. 2d 860 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1999

In evaluating whether the non-moving party has established each necessary element, the Court must grant all reasonable inferences from the evidence to the non-moving party. Knabe v. … That is problematic, in the Court’s view, because the established law under the ADEA suggests that both Congress and the EEOC felt otherwise.