Case law

McClain v. Provident Sav. Life Assur. Soc. of New York

110 F. 80 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 10, 1901

demanded by the established rules governing the construction of written agreements, such an interpretation ought to be avoided. … This, then, was clearly a Pennsylvania contract, and subject to the regulations of the .Pennsylvania laws.

United States v. Tapolcsanyi

40 F.2d 255 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 1930

While every tolerably informed person knows what a Communist is, we are not informed pereisely what is a “red” Communist, yet the adjective “red” qualifying the word “Communist” seemingly suggests a superlative. … Moreover, citizenship itself is not a right; it is a privilege — a civil status conferring rights and immunities.

Yorkshire Ins. Co. v. United States

171 F.2d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 6, 1948

What the United States has thus presented, then, is not a defense upon the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim but a procedural rule established for the convenience of it and other defendants similarly situated. … The United States should have immunity from a multiplicity of suits upon one obligation; but it should pay that obligation if it is found to exist under the statute.

Daye v. Pennsylvania

483 F.2d 294 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 1973

United States, 306 F.2d 713 (3rd Cir. 1962) the Congress has enacted legislation which clearly establishes an intention that' states receiving federal highway funds will waive their immunity from suit. 10 They also contend … Daye, in addition, contends that if there has not been a waiver of immunity, the immunity of Pennsylvania and the Department of Transportation must fall before the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bolden v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

953 F.2d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 31, 1991

Third, the Court noted ( 491 U.S. at 67 , 109 S.Ct. at 2309) that states enjoyed sovereign immunity from suit under common law, and that Section 1983 was not intended to override “well established immunities or defenses under … The third reason cited in Will — that Section 1983 was not intended to override well-established common law immunities— likewise does not support SEPTA’s claim that it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Ashcroft

308 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 8, 2002

they agreed to enter the Union," id., and it concluded that state sovereign immunity applies. … Consequently, I would find a qualified right of access to deportation hearings.

Kadonsky v. New Jersey

188 F. App'x 81 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 2006

The “nonmoving party cannot rely upon eonclusory allegations in its pleadings or in memoranda and briefs to establish a genuine issue of material fact.” Pastore v. … We agree with the District Court that Kadonsky’s false arrest and imprisonment claims and related conspiracy claims against the Somerset County and Brown defendants are clearly time-barred. 5 The malicious prosecution claim

Numah Wilson v. Joel Jean

661 F. App'x 234 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 2016

Qualified immunity, however, “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, because it was not clearly established that there was no probable cause to arrest Wilson under the circumstances the officers confronted, qualified immunity was appropriate.2 We will affirm the order of the

Harris v. Pernsley

755 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 22, 1985

App. 18. 14 The qualified immunity defense only applies, of course, to claims for money damages. … Initially we note that qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. There is no pleading requirement that a plaintiff must anticipate such a defense.

In the Matter of the Estate of Van B. Hooper, Deceased. The Government of the Virgin Islands

359 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 12, 1966

Croix to a person, *523 firm or corporation qualifying as a new industry. … Croix and to encourage the establishment of new industries and other business enterprises, and to promote and stabilize the economy”.

Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation

77 F.3d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 16, 1996

Congress certainly could have amended the definition of "employment agency" in the same manner that it so clearly amended "employer" in 29 U.S.C. § 630 . … "The discretionary power to withhold injunctive and declaratory relief for prudential reasons, even in a case not constitutionally moot, is well established." S-1 v.

Knight v. Poritz

157 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 3, 2005

We exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint based on absolute and qualified immunity grounds. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coviello, 233 F.3d 710, 713 (3d Cir.2000). … Regardless, Murray is entitled to absolute immunity.

Alicia Hatfield v. Amanda Berube

714 F. App'x 99 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

Finally, as to Hatfield’s Fourth Amendment claim, the District Court accepted the defendants’ 3 qualified immunity defense because there was no authority clearly establishing … With respect to the Fourth Amendment claim, we agree that Berube is entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

Estate of Omayra Sob v. City of Jersey City

334 F. App'x 492 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 16, 2009

This Court’s jurisdiction, however, is limited to determining “‘whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of clearly established constitutional right.’” Rivas v. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from civil liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Wiltshire ex rel. Wiltshire v. Government of the Virgin Islands

893 F.2d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 1990

Greiner Engineering, Inc., 861 F.2d 784 (3d Cir.1988) (determining *633 meaning of particular contract term clearly involves construction). … Having established that under the Malpractice Act the government has waived its sovereign immunity to a possible maximum of $250,000 per occurrence, we must now determine how Candida is to be compensated under the terms of

United States v. David James Ward

131 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 13, 1997

We, therefore, have no difficulty in concluding that the Government has established a special need for prompt testing of the assailant. … His pri- or commission of a similar offense involving sexual abuse, therefore, qualified as an “encouraged factor” for departure pursuant to Koon v.

Manufacturers' Land & Improvement Co. v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

284 F. 231 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 1922

All of the shares of stock of the Fleet Corporation but seven, 499,993, are held by the United States Shipping Board for the United States, and the seven are held by the seven directors of the Fleet Corporation to qualify … If a tort be committed by an agent whose principal is above *235 the law, because sovereign, and therefore exempt from judicial process, it would be subversive of the best established principles to say that the law could

Hancock Industries v. Schaeffer

811 F.2d 225 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 6, 1987

Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389, 413 , 98 S.Ct. 1123, 1136 , 55 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978)). 30 The Hallie Court addressed the issue of "how clearly a state policy must be articulated for a municipality to be able to establish … are entitled to the state's antitrust immunity: 42 First, the challenged restraint must be "one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy"; second, the policy must be "actively supervised" by the State

In Re Ford Motor Company

110 F.3d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 2, 1997

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Court allowed the immediate appeal of a claim to qualified immunity in part because such immunity was intended to reduce " 'the general costs of subjecting … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525-27 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2814-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (examining qualified immunity); Nixon v.

United States v. Leary

206 F. App'x 111 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 1, 2006

Refusal to Immunize Richie Bryant Both Travis and Paul Leary claim they are entitled to a new trial based upon the district court’s refusal to immunize Richie Bryant. … The first condition is clearly not satisfied here.