2304 search results for query *

Summary: 54 F. Supp. *411 *412 David M. Barasch, United States Attorney, Anne Fiorenza, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, Michael F. Hertz, Joyce R. Branda, Stanley E. Alderson, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the United States. BACKGROUND: These related actions were brought by relators Brentley and Linda Hicks under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, specifically § 3730. DISCUSSION: I. more.

Summary: 526 F. Supp. See id.; United States v. Delfin-Colina, 464 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir.2006). Nov.8, 2007); United States v. Williams, 417 F.3d 373, 376 (3d Cir.2005); United States v. Glasser, 750 F.2d 1197, 1205 (3d Cir.1984). at 938-939 (citing Holeman v. City of New London, 425 F.3d 184, 190 (2d Cir.2005)) (holding that officer's reasonable belief that darkly tinted windows violated Pennsylvania Vehicle Code justified traffic stop); United States v. Roberts, 77 Fed. See Delfin-Colina, 464 F.3d at more.

Summary: 362 F. Supp. Co. v. Vincent, 375 F.2d 129 (2d Cir. 1967); Mellinger v. Laird, 339 F. Supp. 434 (E.D.Pa.1972); O'Hair v. United States, 281 F. Supp. R.R., 180 F. Supp. 1323 (1938); Herald Co. v. Harper, 410 F.2d 125 (8th Cir. Herald Co. v. Harper, supra; Stix Friedman & Co. v. Coyle, 340 F. Supp. In In re Grand Jury Witnesses Bursey and Presley, 322 F. Supp. United States v. Parenti, 326 F. Supp. The court reiterated its opinion in United States v. Squeri, 398 F.2d 785, 790 (2d Cir.

Summary: 880 F. Supp. Brink v. DaLesio, 667 F.2d 420, 424 (4th Cir.1981), citing Morrissey v. Curran, 650 F.2d 1267, 1274-75 (2d Cir.1981). Nellis v. Air Line Pilots Association, 815 F. Supp. See also: Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers, Local 420 v. Traweek, (Traweek), 867 F.2d 500, 506 (9th Cir.1989) (Plaintiff in section 501 suit "acts in a representative capacity for the benefit of the union and on behalf of the union.") Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons v. Benjamin, (Benjamin), 776 F. more.

Summary: 613 F. Supp. Her most current amended complaint raises the following Counts against all Defendants: Count I alleges violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Count II alleges violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985; Count III alleges discrimination because of age; Count IV alleges violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Count V alleges a civil conspiracy under Pennsylvania law; Count VI alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law; and Count VII alleges wrongful more.

Summary: 262 F. Supp. Joseph F. Flanagan, Reynolds, Reynolds & Doran, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for third party defendant, Ettore J. Lippi. Plaintiffs, Eugene R. Baut and Harry S. Baut, are the holders of United States Letters Patent 3,064,380 for an invention which generally relates to a type of stained glass construction called "art glass" panel construction, and more particularly, to a metal art glass panel. The primary object of the art glass panel is to give color designs, like conventional stained glass, more.

Summary: 460 F. Supp. 1337 (1978) Most Rev. J. Carroll McCORMICK, Bishop, Catholic Diocese of Scranton, Plaintiff, v. Peter W. HIRSCH, Regional Director For the Fourth Region, National Labor Relations Board, Defendant, and Bishop Hoban Education Association, of the Pennsylvania State Education Association and the National Education Association, Defendant Intervenor. After carefully reviewing the law pertaining to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the cases relevant to this First Amendment claim, more.

Summary: 436 F. Supp. Presently before the court is a "MOTION FOR THE UNSEALING OF AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN SUPPORT OF SEARCH WARRANT AND THE UNSEALING OF THE APPLICATION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR SEALING OF AFFIDAVIT, RETURN OF PROPERTY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING," (Doc. at 163 (citing In re One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Five Dollars in United States Currency, 777 F. Supp. U.S. v. Migely, 596 F.2d 511 (1st Cir.1979); U.S. v. Clifford, 297 F. Supp. Grant v. United States, 282 F.2d 165 (2d Cir.1960); more.

Summary: 767 F. Supp. He contends that the court committed reversible error in (1) refusing to instruct the jury that his employer was immune from suit and that the negligence of the employer was, consequently, no defense to plaintiff's strict liability allegations against the defendants; (2) directing that the last sentence of an excerpt from the guard installation manual — which directed the user to remove the inner guard if it was not required by OSHA inspectors — be erased before the manual was more.

Summary: 955 F. Supp. 1549 (1997) Rolf LARSEN, Plaintiff, v. SENATE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants. Arlin M. Adams, Schnader, Harrison, Segal and Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, Morey M. Myers, Myers, Brier & Kelly, Scranton, PA, Michael J. Barry, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, for David J. Brightbill, J. Doyle Corman, Michael M. Dawida, Michael B. Fisher, Vincent J. Fumo, Stewart J. Greenleaf, Melissa A. Hart, David W. Heckler, Edward W. Helfrick, Edwin G. Holl, more.

Summary: 302 F. Supp. 2d 366 (2001) BOROUGH OF THROOP, Plaintiff, v. GOULD ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant. Diana S. Donaldson, John M. Armstrong, Robert L. Collings, Theodore F. Haussman, Jr., Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, John M. Armstrong, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Defendant. The Release provides the following "For and in consideration of the...$250,000...the Borough does *369 hereby release, acquit and forever discharge Gould...from any and all more.

Summary: 141 B.R. 293 (1992) In re Larry HOHOL and Cryco, Inc., Debtors. Larry HOHOL and Cryco, Inc., Appellants, v. ESSEX INDUSTRIES, INC. and Penox Technologies, Inc., formerly Big Ben Group, Ltd., Appellees. I. On December 27, 1988, Essex Technologies, Inc. (Essex) entered into an agreement (Asset Agreement) with Larry Hohol (Hohol) to purchase the assets of Penox Technologies, Inc. (Penox).Upon terminating his employment with Penox, Hohol incorporated Cryco, Inc. (Cryco), of which he is the more.

Summary: 596 F. Supp. 954 (1984) CITY OF HARRISBURG and Stephen R. Reed, as Mayor and Individually, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY and Woolf/Strite Associates, Inc., Defendants. [1] In this dispute concerning coverage under a "claims-made" insurance policy, defendants contend that they have no obligation to pay for the costs and attorney's fees incurred by plaintiff, Stephen R. Reed, Mayor of the City of Harrisburg, in defending a libel and wrongful use of civil proceedings more.

Summary: 892 F. Supp. BACKGROUND: This declaratory judgment action[1] was filed by plaintiff Western World Insurance Company (Western World) against defendant Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance)[2] to determine which of them is the primary insurer for claims asserted in a civil rights action[3] filed against the City of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (the city), city officials, the Wilkes-Barre Police Department (police department), and Wilkes-Barre police officers for the death of James P. O'Boyle. The more.

Summary: 786 F. Supp. *447 Harries argues that since his claim is based on the doctrine of crashworthiness, which imposes liability in situations in which the defect did not cause the accident, but rather increased the severity of the injury over that which would have occurred absent the defective design, Barris v. Bob's Drag Chute and Safety Equipment, Inc., 685 F.2d 94, 99 (3d Cir.1982), the actions of the operator which caused the crash to occur are irrelevant to his action against GM.GM relies more.

Summary: 273 F. Supp. Pending the appointment of the three-Judge Court and action on their application for an interlocutory injunction, plaintiffs requested the District Judge to whom the application was made to issue a temporary restraining order in accordance with Section 2284(3) of Title 28 U.S.C.[3] Pennsylvania's decision to discontinue the Buffalo-Harrisburg runs on May 15 could not otherwise be forestalled because the four-month delay ordered by the Commission under Section 13a(1) would expire on more.

Summary: 639 F. Supp. 76 (1985) Robert M. WYNNE, Plaintiff, v. SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; Anthony F. Ceddia, Benjamin S. Nispel, Hugh E. Jones, H. Erik Shaar, et al., Defendants. Rochester v. White, 503 F.2d 263 (3d Cir.1974), is cited for the proposition that "... federal courts have long recognized that neither the Commonwealth nor its agencies are "persons" within the meaning of § 1983".[3] The parties agree that the test to be utilized in determining whether an agency is an "arm of the more.

Summary: 131 F. Supp. Defendant argues and cites in support thereof Johnson v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., D.C.W.D. Pa., 1952, 106 F. Supp. In Johnson v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., supra, 106 F. Supp. 166, the only evidence was a stipulation as to monthly earnings; but see Patton, v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., D.C., 120 F. Supp. Pilipovich v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., supra, 314 Pa. at page 591, 172 A. 136; Endler v. United States, D.C., 101 F. Supp. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Kelly, supra, 241 U.S. at page 491, 36 S. Ct. more.

Summary: 644 F. Supp. 1130 (1986) George H. KEYSER, Individually, as class representative on behalf of others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Commonwealth National Financial Corporation, and Walter W. Shearer, Plaintiffs, v. COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Charles F. Merrill [Merrill] is President and Chief Executive Officer of both Commonwealth and CNB. It is unquestioned, however, that in late 1982, McCullough, acting as President of Meridian's more.