This case involves the parents of a deceased U.S. Army staff sergeant suing military contractor KBR for negligence in electrical maintenance services at a base in Iraq, which allegedly caused the soldier's electrocution death while showering; the claims were brought under Pennsylvania wrongful death and survival statutes. The narrow issue before the court was KBR's motion to apply Iraqi law to the tort claims. The court denied the motion. Its core reasoning was that a choice-of-law analysis did not support applying Iraqi Civil Code provisions on wrongful acts and compensation, given the parties' U.S. domiciles (Pennsylvania and Texas/Delaware), the location of the incident on a U.S.-controlled military base, the U.S. Army contract at issue, and the effect of Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 on any Iraqi-law analysis.
This case involved a constitutional challenge by Project Vote and ACORN to Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 1713, which criminalizes giving, soliciting, or accepting payment or financial incentives for voter registrations when based on the number obtained. The plaintiffs argued that the statute, both facially and as applied by the Allegheny County District Attorney in prosecuting former ACORN canvassers paid hourly wages despite aspirational production goals, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied it to the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs' conduct—hourly compensation without commissions tied to registration numbers—fell outside the statute's prohibition, that the District Attorney's charges rested on a misreading of the law, and that the statute was not unconstitutional on its face or as properly applied.
This case arose from the death of a 10-month-old child at a privately operated daycare center in 2008, after which the child's mother sued several Pennsylvania state officials in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff alleged that the officials violated the child's due process rights by failing to adequately regulate or inspect the daycare, invoking the state-created danger exception to the rule in DeShaney v. Winnebago County. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that state officials affirmatively created or increased the danger to the child or that any special relationship existed that would impose a constitutional duty to protect.
In this case, plaintiff Charles Chisler, a corrections officer trainee, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pennsylvania Department of Corrections employees, alleging he was violently attacked and hog-tied during required training and that supervisors later threatened him to prevent a truthful report. During discovery, Chisler moved to compel production of an Office of Professional Responsibility investigative file concerning a suicide at another facility, which he argued was relevant to proving an informal custom or policy of workplace violence and hazing across state institutions. The DOC opposed on grounds of relevance and asserted government documents and deliberative process privileges. After in camera review, the court granted the motion to compel but ordered the documents produced under seal with limited redactions, finding the materials relevant under Rule 26 and determining that the privileges did not bar disclosure when balanced against the need for the evidence and privacy protections.
The case was an appeal by Michael Corso from a bankruptcy court decision in an adversary proceeding against his ex-wife Maryann Walker, concerning whether certain student loan debts were nondischargeable in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Corso argued the debts qualified as exceptions under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) for education loans, § 523(a)(2) due to alleged fraud in the marital settlement agreement, and § 523(a)(15) as obligations from a divorce agreement. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that none of these exceptions applied, holding that Walker was not a party to the original loans, the settlement agreement did not involve false representations or fraud, and the debts did not meet the criteria for nondischargeability under the cited provisions given the facts and applicable bankruptcy discharge rules.
This case involves a constitutional challenge by Melissa Burns, owner of a Pennsylvania childcare facility, to provisions of the state's Child Protective Services Law governing the investigation and classification of suspected child abuse reports. Burns alleged that a state official's determination classifying her as an indicated perpetrator and entering her name in the central register violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as the finding lacked substantial evidence and affected her ability to operate the facility. The court considered a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing certain procedural and substantive due process claims to proceed based on the allegations that the process and evidence were constitutionally inadequate while dismissing others.
