Cases

[J-65-2022] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ. ALLEGHENY REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH : No. 26 MAP 2021 CENTER, ALLENTOWN WOMEN'S : CENTER, DELAWARE COUNTY : Appeal from the Orders of the WOMEN'S CENTER, PHILADELPHIA : Commonwealth Court at No. 26 MD WOMEN'S CENTER, PLANNED : 2019 dated January 28, 2020, and PAREN

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued April 27, 2020 Decided June 30, 2020 No. 17-1098 ALLEGHENY DEFENSE PROJECT, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT ANADARKO ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, ET AL., INTERVENORS Consolidated with 17-1128, 17-1263, 18-10

OPINION OF THE COURT AMBRO, Circuit Judge. Norman Grayson, an inmate at various times of the three institutions named as defendants, brought this pro se damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The District Court granted Gray

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Allegheny Reproductive Health Center, : Allentown Women’s Center, Delaware : County Women’s Center, Philadelphia : Women’s Center, Planned Parenthood : Keystone, Planned Parenthood : Southeastern Pennsylvania, and Planned : Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, : Petitioners : : v. : No. 26 M.D. 2019

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE WHARF, INC. t/a THE WHARF, et al., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Civil Action No. 15-1198 (CKK) Defendants, and WHARF HORIZONTAL REIT LEASEHOLDER LLC, et al., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. MEMORANDUM

OPINION MCKEE, Circuit Judge. Appellants (collectively referred to as “ADP”), appeal the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant, the United States Forest Service, on Counts I and III of their complaint. ADP filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), to challenge the Forest Servic

OPINION BY Judge COHN JUBELIRER. Section 8553 of what is commonly known as the Political Subdivision Tort Claims *777Act1 (Tort Claims Act) limits recovery of damages against political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) to $500,000 in the aggregate for tort injuries arising from the same transa

423 F.3d 215 THE ALLEGHENY DEFENSE PROJECT, INC.; Heartwood, Inc.; the Pennsylvania Environmental Network; the National Forest Protection Alliance; Communities for Sustainable Forestry; Jim Kleissler; Newkirk Johnson; Rachel Martin; Susan Curry; Ryan Talbott; Bill Belitskus; Arthur Clark; Alexander Denmarsh; John A. Keslick, Jr.; Sierra Clubv.The UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; Robert T. Jacobs, in his official capacity as the Regional Forest

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

STOREY, Member, Pursuant to Rule 208(d)(2)(iii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania herewith submits its findings and recommendations to your honorable court with respect to the above-captioned petition for discipline. I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS On May 13,2005, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania entered an orde

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Relief and/or Qualified and Sovereign Immunity, filed October 15, 2012 (Doc. 27)(“Motion to Dismiss”). The Court held a hearing on January 31, 2013. The primary issues are: (i) whether Defendant Central Consolidated School Distri

[J-39-2014] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, STEVENS, JJ. ASHLEY ZAUFLIK, : No. 1 MAP 2014 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order of the : Commonwealth Court dated July 3, 2013

MEMORANDUM & ORDER John E. Jones III, United States District Judge In his Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff Shawn Joseph O’Donnell (“Plaintiff’) asserts a Fourth Amendment claim to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim and a supervisory and municipal liability claim, all pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and pendant state constitutional claims. (D

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT TERRENCE F. McVERRY, District Judge. I. Introduction Before the Court for disposition are the Plaintiffs MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 55), along with her supporting brief, supplement and exhibits (ECF Nos. 56-58), the Defendants’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 59), along with their supporting brief and exhib

464 F.Supp. 343 (1979) William C. CAMP, Plaintiff, v. Peter A. GUERCIO, Individual, Pfizer, Inc., a corporation, and Pfizer Retirement Annuity Plan, an Entity, and Citibank N. A., Trustee of the Entity, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 76-744-A. United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. January 31, 1979. *344 Felix J. DeGuilio, Pi

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Judge SIMPSON. I agree with the majority’s resolution of the Students’ special legislation challenge to Section 2134 of the School Code (Transition Statute).1 However, I respectfully dissent from the conclusions regarding a denial of procedural due process. For the reasons that follow, I would affirm the grant of

24 A.3d 1083 (2011) The COUNTY OF DAUPHIN and Joseph and Jacalyn Lahr, Appellants v. CITY OF HARRISBURG, Mayor Linda D. Thompson, Paul P. Wambach, Treasurer, Daniel C. Miller, Controller, Gloria Martin Roberts, President, City Council, Kelly Summerford, Susan Brown Wilson, Brad Koplinski, Wanda D. Williams, Patty Kim, and Eugenia Smith, City Council Members. No. 1668 C.D. 2010. Commonwealth Court of Pe

Dissenting Opinion by Judge SMITH-RIBNER. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s interpretation of the statute at issue, Section 2(b) of the Act of July 22, 1913, P.L. 912 (1913 Act), as amended, 61 P.S. § 2151(b), as amended by Section 1 of the Act of December 20, 2000, P.L. 770 (Act 107). The majority concludes that a phrase in Section 2(b) of the 1913 Act, as amended by Act 107, requires the Comm

TO BE PUBLISHED THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California DANIEL E. LUNGREN Attorney General _______________________________ OPINION : No. 91-808 :

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge: These appeals present novel and important issues which require us to consider the scope of the federal government’s authority to encourage and negotiate expeditious and efficient settlement *834of widespead charges of employment discrimination in the nation’s steel industry. Some of these issues are procedural in nature; others call into que