Case law

United States v. Stephen A. Knox

977 F.2d 815 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 15, 1992

We hold that such visual depictions qualify as an exhibition, and that this construction does not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad. … Clearly, Congress understood how to limit the statute’s scope to encompass only nude displays.

New Directions Treatment Services v. City of Reading

490 F.3d 293 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 2007

The City moved on September 3, 2004 to dismiss individual City officials on the grounds of common law quasi-judicial immunity and qualified immunity. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). … We squarely held in Newman that this language in the ADA clearly establishes that the “sole reason” standard adopted by the District Court is inapplicable to the ADA, which requires only but for causation.

Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney General of the United States

694 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 13, 2012

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has adopted a test resembling the qualified immunity inquiry into whether a constitutional violation was the result of bad faith. Orhorhaghe, 38 F.3d at 493. … We did not address the merits of the alleged constitutional torts because the only issues before us involved the defendants‘ qualified immunity. 34  were shown, and particularly if

Alcoa, Inc. v. United States

509 F.3d 173 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

under a claim of right, the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 for the taxable year shall be the tax provided in paragraph (b) of this section. 26 C.F.R. § 1.1341 — 1(a)(1) (emphasis added). 7 Clearly … Clearly, to restore something to another means to give it to the person who either once had it or should have had it all along — in this case, the person with the actual claim of right to the item of income.

Nathan Clouser v. Todd Johnson

684 F. App'x 243 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 3, 2017

Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the District Court determined that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated any “clearly established” right under the Sixth … If none exists, it may be possible that a “robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority” in the Courts of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity. Taylor v.

Laskaris v. Thornburgh

733 F.2d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 24, 1984

The court also held, although it did not need to do so, that Larson and Scheiner had established the defense of official immunity, see Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 , 100 S.Ct. 1920 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980); Scheuer v. … In view of our disposition of the case, we do not reach the issue of official immunity. .

Treasurer State NJ v. US Dept Treas

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 27, 2012

Payment agents, ordinarily banks, are financial institutions qualified under Treasury regulations to pay sums due on savings bonds. See 31 C.F.R. §§ 315.2(j), 353.2(f). … Intergovernmental Immunity The Supreme Court‟s decision in McCulloch, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 322, established the bedrock principle that “the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden

Becton Dickinson And Company v. Reinhard A. Wolckenhauer

215 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2000

Section 7426 clearly constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. … Ct. 1611 (1995) (holding that when confronted with a purported waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity, the Court will "construe ambiguities in favor of immunity"); United States v.

Commissioner v. Thompson

222 F.2d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 27, 1955

There appears to be no dispute now that if a value of the contracts can be determined, they qualify as depreciable assets. … Their testimony clearly showed the elements which went into the formation of their opinions, and adequately supports the criticism of the Tax Court.

DUFFY, Douglass M., Appellee, v. WHEELING PITTSBURGH STEEL CORP., Appellant

738 F.2d 1393 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 1984

We affirm, holding that there was no error of law and the district court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. I. … We next consider whether the district court’s finding of pretext or intentional discrimination was clearly erroneous.

Reynolds v. United States. Brauner v. United States

192 F.2d 987 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 1951

Under these circumstances it was clearly within the judicial power of the court to pass upon the question of privilege thus raised. … See Berger and Krash, Government Immunity from Discovery, 1950, 59 Yale L.J. 1451 , 1462-1464.

Solan v. Ranck

326 F. App'x 97 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 8, 2009

No. 154, 19.2 However, the court determined that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right recognized by the court is not “clearly established.” See id. at 23-25. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Miller v.

Colleen v. Ford v. Schering-Plough Corporation Schering Corporation Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

145 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 22, 1998

The locus of the ambiguity is whether the ADA contains a temporal qualifier of the term “qualified individual with a disability!!]” … Instead, the Eleventh Circuit argued that, “[a]bsent clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the plain language of the statute should be conclusive.” Id. at 1528.

United States v. Harris

582 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 23, 2009

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 8 Id. at 606-07. … We recognize that because of the habeas posture of the case, Chadwick’s holding is limited to concluding that the Supreme Court had not clearly established due process limitations on the length of time a eontemnor can be

Jeffrey Steidle v. United States Liability Insurance Co Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 24, 2026

Hershey Chocolate U.S., 440 F.3d 604, 611 (3d Cir. 2006) (explaining that in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must be a “qualified individual,” which is defined as a person “who, with … 2020 through December 20, 2020 qualifies as protected activity.

Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.

618 F.3d 398 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 2010

Second, it argued that it was immune from suit under the “combatant activities” exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. … Because the plaintiff maintained that her complaint was legally sufficient, and clearly signaled her intent to stand upon it, we treated the dismissal without prejudice as a final decision. Id.

Blaylock v. Philadelphia

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2007

a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”) … Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity here “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest Andre Blaylock “in light of clearly established law and the information

Brown v. Armenti

247 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 2001

The doctrine of qualified immunity establishes"that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … the federal right was "clearly established."

Luis Vega v. George Ripley

571 F. App'x 96 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 3, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials are shielded from civil liability for conduct that does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person … Because no reasonable jury could conclude that Ripley lacked probable cause to arrest Vega, Ripley is entitled to qualified immunity and Vega cannot establish a prima facie case of malicious prosecution.

Larsen v. Senate of The Commonwealth

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 1998

8 A right is "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes only if "[t]he contours of the right" are "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." … on qualified immunity grounds.