Cases

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. This case involves a group of landlords who object to the system of liens used by the City of Philadelphia to collect unpaid gas bills. The District Court certified a class and held that the City had violated the landlords' rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The City filed this appeal, arguing that its procedures for collecting gas

KATZ, — This action is before the court on defendant City of Philadelphia’s motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that the city is immune from liability, the motion is granted and plaintiff’s complaint against the city is dismissed. Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, demonstrate t

MEMORANDUM PRATTER, District Judge. Officer Yolaina Washington-Pope’s harrowing ordeal raises the question of whether an on-duty, in-uniform police officer, who raises his service weapon to his partner’s temple as their exchange of words in their police cruiser rapidly escalates, acts under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the facts of this case and Ms. Washington-P

MEMORANDUM R. BARCLAY SURRICK, District Judge. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion For Class Certification (ECF. No. 2). For the following reasons, the Motion will be granted. I. BACKGROUND This is a putative class action for injunctive and declaratory relief in which Plaintiffs, who were inmates in the Philadelphia Prison System (the “PPS”) when

7/16/2021 10:41:51 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 19-123.pdf 19-123_new.pdf versus 110 pages (538 KB) 110 pages (605

8/17/2021 5:07:01 PM Compare Results Old File: New File: 19-123.pdf 19-123_new.pdf versus 110 pages (538 KB) 110 pages (604 KB)

7/8/2021 2:30:57 PM Compare Results Old File: New File: 19-123.pdf 19-123_new.pdf versus 110 pages (538 KB) 110 pages (606 KB)

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 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

934 A.2d 156 (2007) CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (SHERLOCK), Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs August 10, 2007. Decided October 10, 2007. *157 Martin G. Malloy, Philadelphia, for petitioner. Neil S. Kerzner, Philadelphia, for respondent. BEF

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1640 DENC, LLC, Plaintiff − Appellee, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant – Appellant, and TOKIO MARINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., d/b/a Philadelphia Insurance Companies, Inc., Defendant.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1644 Doc: 47 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 35 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1640 DENC, LLC, Plaintiff − Appellee, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant –

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1640 Doc: 48 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 35 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1640 DENC, LLC, Plaintiff − Appellee, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant –

GARTH, Circuit Judge, concurring: I agree with the majority opinion that sentenced and convicted prisoners have no expectation giving rise to a liberty interest under Pennsylvania law and that pretrial detainees and convicted but unsentenced prisoners may not have their sixth amendment right to counsel violated by transfers which impair their access to counsel. Thus, I concur in the result reached by the m

PRYOR, Circuit Judge: The key issue in this appeal is whether the practice of two county commissions that allow volunteer leaders of different religions, on a rotating basis, to offer invocations with a variety of religious expressions violates the Establishment Clause. Both the Cobb County Commission and the Cobb County Planning Commission have a long tradition of opening their meetings with a prayer offered by volunteer

957 F.Supp. 622 (1997) ATLANTIC USED AUTO PARTS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 96-3904. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. March 7, 1997. *623 *624 A. Charles Peruto, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs. Leon A. King, II, As

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, United States District Judge If individuals or religious groups organize a prayer vigil and gather in the Downtown Square in the City of Ocala to pray for an end to violent crime, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution will protect the "free exercise" of their religion. But what if the government organizes and sponsors the prayer vigil? That is a problem because under the Establishment Clause of t

[J-49A-2017] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. IN RE: ANGELES ROCA FIRST : No. 42 EAP 2016 JUDICIAL DISTRICT PHILADELPHIA : COUNTY : Appeal from the Order dated 12/16/16 : of the Court of Judicial Disc

OPINION OF THE COURT GREENBERG, Circuit Judge. In this civil rights action, the City of Philadelphia appeals from an order entered February 11, 1991, denying it a judgment notwithstanding a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs Midnight Sessions (After Midnight), Baker Ocean, Inc. (Down South), and several of their individual investors, who alleged that the City violated their constitutional rights by denying

945 F.2d 667 MIDNIGHT SESSIONS, LTD., t/a After Midnight, Baker Ocean,Inc., t/a Down South, Good Times Cafe, Inc., Donald R.Welch, Sally Hunter, Jack Manoff, Richard Singer, and CurtE. Heidinger, Appellees-Cross-Appellants,v.CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, City of Philadelphia PoliceDepartment, City of Philadelphia Department of Licenses &Inspections, City of Philadelphia Board of License &Inspection Review, Alan Kessl

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al, (the “Debtors,” or “Circuit City”) filed these bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).1 The Debtors’ bankruptcy cases were consolidated for joint administration pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Fed