2304 search results for query

Citation: 927 F. Supp. 824 | Docket No.: Civil Action No. 1:CV-95-612
Status: Published | Citing: 26
Summary: 927 F. Supp. Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir.1989) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1482 (3d Cir.1990). "Pittman v. Correctional Healthcare Solutions, Inc., 868 F. Supp. Co., 53 F.3d 1531, 1537 (10th Cir.1995) (emphasis in original) (citing Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 19 F.3d 533, 538 (10th Cir.1994)); see also Miller v. Aluminum Co. of America, 679 F. Supp. Hostile behavior that does not bespeak an more.

Citation: 263 F. Supp. 2d 925 | Docket No.: 3:CV-97-0613
Status: Published | Citing: 11
Summary: 263 F. Supp. 2d 925 (2003) TIAB COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. KEYMARKET OF NEPA, INC. and Sinclair Communications Licensee of Wilkes-Barre, Inc., Defendants No. 3:CV-97-0613. The original holder of this license, Tiab Communications Corp. ("Tiab"), has challenged the transfer of the license by its transferee, Crystal Castle, Inc. ("Crystal") to Keymarket of NEPA, Inc. ("Keymarket"), as well as Keymarket's transfer of the license to Sinclair Radio of Wilkes-Barre License, Inc. (" more.

Citation: 777 F. Supp. 405 | Docket No.: 90-CV-1228
Status: Published | Citing: 25
Summary: 777 F. Supp. As Hanes' insurer, Federal Kemper denies any obligation to defend or indemnify him in the state court action under policy exclusions which negate coverage for injuries arising from completed operations or product hazards or from work performed by independent contractors. For the reasons which follow, we find that the policy exclusion negating coverage for work performed by independent contractors applies and that Federal Kemper is not obligated to defend or indemnify Hanes in the more.

Citation: 832 F. Supp. 106 | Docket No.: 4:CV-92-1352
Status: Published | Citing: 22
Summary: 832 F. Supp. BACKGROUND This is an action by the United States for reimbursement of response costs and for a declaratory judgment[1] on liability pursuant to sections 107 and 113(g)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and 9613(g)(2), in connection with the Drake Chemical Superfund Site (the Drake site or the site) and the American Color and Chemical facility (the AC & C facility or the site) located in Lock Haven, Clinton more.

Citation: 320 F. Supp. 2d 291 | Docket No.: 1:04-CV-0090
Status: Published | Citing: 31
Summary: 320 F. Supp. 2d 291 (2004) LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER S. LUCAS AND ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff v. DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant. In Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir.1996), our Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit added that in considering a motion to dismiss based on a failure to state a claim argument pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 2d 80 (1957); see also *294 District Council 47 v. Bradley, 795 F.2d 310 (3d Cir.1986). "(citing Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891; PBGC more.

Citation: 712 F. Supp. 2d 332 | Docket No.: 3:09-cv-1554
Status: Published | Citing: 60
Summary: 712 F. Supp. 2d 332 (2010) Joseph R. REISINGER, Plaintiff, v. LUZERNE COUNTY, Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau, Mary Dysleski, Stephen A. Urban, Neil T. O'Donnell, James P. Blaum, The Cadle Company II, Inc., Daniel C. Cadle, Michael Kermec, Doug Harrah, Kevin T. Fogerty, Tina Randazzo, Nova Savings Bank, and Craig J. Scher, Defendants. Here we consider the three motions to dismiss pending in this action in which Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and pendant state law claims. 28) more.

Citation: 613 F. Supp. 1179 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 85-0504
Status: Published | Citing: 9
Summary: 613 F. Supp. See Unger v. Hacker, 578 F. Supp. See Prochaska v. Fediaczko, 473 F. Supp. Flores v. Cuyler, 511 F. Supp.

Citation: 593 F. Supp. 2d 737 | Docket No.: Civil No. 3:CV-08-1749
Status: Published | Citing: 6
Summary: (2008) Bakayoko YACOUBA, Petitioner v. DISTRICT DIRECTOR, ICE, et al., Respondents. Named as Respondents are Warden Thomas Hogan of the York County Prison, District Director of the ICE, the United States Department of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General of the United States. Yacouba's present petition contends that his continued detention by ICE is unjustified, improper under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and violates due process under the principles established by the more.

Citation: 560 F. Supp. 2d 337 | Docket No.: Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-1857
Status: Published | Citing: 21
Summary: (2008) Milton PURCELL, Plaintiff v. Oliver EWING, Defendant. This is a diversity action in which plaintiff Milton Purcell ("Purcell") advances a defamation claim against defendant Oliver Ewing ("Ewing") arising from comments Ewing posted on a publicly accessible on-line message board. Ewing has moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the statements upon which Purcell rests his case fail to constitute defamation as a matter of law. I. Statement of Facts[1] Purcell is an alumnus of the more.

Citation: 892 F. Supp. 648 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 89-CV 1657
Status: Published | Citing: 16
Summary: 892 F. Supp. This Court was directed to determine whether defendant Alcan Aluminum Corporation ("Alcan") can avoid or limit liability that otherwise may be imposed as a result of the fact that its used oil emulsion had been commingled with other oily wastes containing hazardous substances which discharged from a mine tunnel into the Susquehanna River in 1985 in the wake of Hurricane Gloria. See United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d 252, 270-71 (3rd Cir.1992) ("Alcan-Butler"). Contrary more.

Citation: 709 F. Supp. 90 | Docket No.: CV 87-0831
Status: Published | Citing: 14
Summary: 709 F. Supp. 90 (1988) Robert BEDNARSKI and Fadua Bednarski, his wife, and Robert Bednarski, as Administrator of the Estate of Ronald Bednarski, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. HIDEOUT HOMES & REALTY, INC., A DIVISION OF U.S. HOMES & PROPERTIES, INC. and William F. Rooney Electrical Contractor, Inc., Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. CUTLER HAMMER CORPORATION, A SUBSIDIARY OF EATON CORPORATION, Walter W. Grote, and Pike-Wayne Inspection Agency, Third-Party Defendants, v. DOWGARD STYROFOAM, A more.

Citation: 663 F. Supp. 1187 | Docket No.: Civ. No. 86-0475
Status: Published | Citing: 18
Summary: 663 F. Supp. Moreover, defendants maintain that since no charge was filed with the PHRC this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because pursuant to the ADEA no complaint may be filed in federal court until sixty (60) days elapse after a charge is filed with the appropriate state agency. The records reveal, however, that on February 14, 1985, the PHRC received notification from EEOC that plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC alleging age discrimination and that, pursuant more.

Citation: 375 F. Supp. 2d 406 | Docket No.: CIV 1:CV050623
Status: Published | Citing: 20
Summary: 375 F. Supp. 2d 406 (2005) Anthony THOMAS, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants No. I. Introduction Plaintiff, Anthony Thomas,an inmate at the State Correctional Institution-Retreat in Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania,[1] commenced this action pro se with a pleading construed as a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2d 331 (1978); Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir.2000). Indisputably meritless more.

Citation: 371 F. Supp. 2d 636 | Docket No.: CIV. 1:CV 05 0665
Status: Published | Citing: 18
Summary: 371 F. Supp. Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1463-64 (3d Cir.1992). at 1461; See also Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 345 (3d Cir.1989) (immunity attached despite prosecutor's failure to investigate prior to initiation of grand jury proceedings and lack of good faith belief that unlawful conduct occurred). Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir.1989). Indisputably meritless legal theories are those "in which it is ... readily apparent that the plaintiff's complaint lacks an arguable more.

Citation: 240 F. Supp. 233 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 7810
Status: Published | Citing: 12
Summary: 240 F. Supp. 233 (1965) The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Joseph SHARFSIN, P. Stephen Stahlnecker, Robert W. Anthony, William F. O'Hara and John L. Dorris, individually and as Commissioners of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Defendants. Defendants, Joseph Sharfsin, P. Stephen Stahlnecker, Robert W. Anthony, William F. O'Hara, and John L. Dorris, hereinafter called "Commissioners", are now and for many years last past have been the duly appointed, qualified and acting more.

Citation: 315 F. Supp. 238 | Docket No.: 70-123 Civ
Status: Published | Citing: 42
Summary: 315 F. Supp. 238 (1970) PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, the Allegheny Mountain Chapter of Trout Unlimited, an unincorporated association, Colson E. Blakeslee, Marion E. Brooks, Robert L. Kolek, Bertil L. Anderson, and Joseph H. Fritz, Plaintiffs, v. Robert G. BARTLETT, individually and as Secretary of the Department of Highways of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, John Volpe, individually and as Secretary of Transportation of the United States, Central more.

Citation: 697 F. Supp. 821 | Docket No.: Civ. No. 86-1704
Status: Published | Citing: 51
Summary: 697 F. Supp. Petitioner, an inmate at S.C.I.-Pittsburgh, PA presented fifteen separate claims, alleging error by the trial court and ineffective assistance of counsel. See Hubbard v. Jeffes, 653 F.2d 99, 102 (3d Cir.1981). 2d 674; see also Hubbard v. Jeffes, 653 F.2d 99, 104 (3d Cir.1981); Williams v. Zimmerman, No. 86-5731 (E.D.Pa. June 18, 1987) [available on WESTLAW, 1987 WL 12754]; Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 278, 372 A.2d 687, 696 (1977) (counsel is not ineffective for failing to more.

Citation: 60 F. Supp. 2d 412 | Docket No.: 4:CV-96-0327
Status: Published | Citing: 12
Summary: 60 F. Supp. BACKGROUND: On September 29, 1995, plaintiffs Jeannette Tranor and Richard Tranor (both now deceased) commenced this action with the filing of a complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging negligence on the part of the defendant health care providers. Before the court are: (1) a motion (actually, two such motions) by defendants Hinkle and Vickers for summary judgment on Count III of the complaint; (2) a motion by defendant Vickers for summary judgment as to Count I of more.

Citation: 571 F. Supp. 872 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 82-1338
Status: Published | Citing: 36
Summary: 571 F. Supp. I. Background On October 27, 1982, plaintiff filed her complaint against the Secretary of Health and Human Services challenging the procedure utilized by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to recoup purported overpayments from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries.[2] Plaintiff sought to bring a class action on behalf of "every SSI beneficiary within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who has requested a waiver of an alleged SSI overpayment and who has not or will more.