Case law

Cochran v. Veneman

359 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 24, 2004

The Cochrans appeal. 10 We must decide whether the challenged communications pursuant to the Dairy Act are government speech and thereby immune from First Amendment scrutiny. … In fact, after discussing the various standards potentially applicable here, Judge Aldisert clearly states in the ensuing Part VI-B that under any level of scrutiny, the assessments for speech only do not pass constitutional

Cohen v. City Of Philadelphia

736 F.2d 81 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 1984

, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … The first prong of the test is clearly met in this case: Philadelphia and the individual defendants undisputedly acted under color of state law.

United States v. United States Sugar Corporation

73 F.4th 197 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 13, 2023

First, the government must establish a prima facie case that the merger is anticompetitive. Id. … That factual determination was not clearly erroneous.

Newmark v. Principi

283 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 13, 2002

After briefing by the parties, the District Court determined that since the offer of judgment specifically provided for the award of attorneys' fees under the EAJA, the Court did not need to establish whether the ADEA would … paid by the United States; and (ii) attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified

Raymond Sekula and L. Kathleen Sekula v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Resolution Trust Corporation, Raymond F. Sekula and L. Kathleen Sekula

39 F.3d 448 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 9, 1994

The first alternative would collapse into one step what is clearly meant to be a two-step process under the regulation. … Subsection (c) discusses how accounts qualify, and (d) describes how joint accounts are treated if they do not qualify.

Francisco Munoz v. City of Union City

481 F. App'x 754 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 11, 2012

“The qualified immunity doctrine „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 … Martinetti is entitled to qualified immunity unless Munoz can demonstrate: (1) a violation of his constitutional rights; and (2) the right was clearly established, such that no reasonable official in Martinetti‟s position

Philadelphia Pickling Co. v. United States

202 F. 150 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 1913

The act has two clearly separate objects ( 220 U. S. 54 , 31 Sup. Ct. 364, 55 L. … These objects of the act are not changed or qualified by the purpose of the owner. He may, or may not, intend to sell.

Mohammad Mahmoud v. City of Paterson

611 F. App'x 95 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 7, 2015

Mahmoud claims that the District Court incorrectly granted qualified immunity to the individual Defendants. … An analysis of qualified immunity involves two issues: (1) whether a government official’s conduct violates a constitutional right, and (2) whether such right was “clearly established.” Saucier v.

Justin Credico v. Krenitsky

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 2021

Qualified immunity applies unless: (1) the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Pearson v. … Here, the law at issue was not clearly established at the time of Credico’s supervised release meeting.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Hodge

359 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 26, 2004

Though established by federal law, the Appellate Division exercises “such appellate jurisdiction over the courts of the Virgin Islands established by local law [i.e., the Territorial Court] to the extent now or hereafter … immunity may be subjected to a trial.

Culinary Service of Delaware Valley, Inc. v. Borough of Yardley

385 F. App'x 135 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

The grant of immunity will be upheld only when immunity is established on the face of the complaint. Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 295 (3d Cir. 2006). … Therefore, we could alternatively dismiss Count I on the basis of qualified immunity.

Richard DeSabetino v. Sean Biagini

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2021

Qualified immunity applies unless: (1) the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Pearson v. … Thus, the use of force by Officers Snider, Symsek, and Kelly did not violate any of Desabetino’s clearly established constitutional rights, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Yeskey v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

118 F.3d 168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 1997

Murray, 57 F.3d 1340, 1344-46 (4th Cir. 1995) (coverage of prisons by Section 504 and Title II not clearly established in qualified immunity context), cert. denied, 116 S. … defendants in that case therefore were entitled to qualified immunity.

Kidd v. Pennsylvania

37 F. App'x 588 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 2002

Therefore, Kidd’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim is barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. . … Kidd also argues that the witnesses' testimony was relevant to establish malice or reckless indifference for punitive damages.

Keith Collier v. Adams

602 F. App'x 850 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 25, 2015

The Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of the Defendants, concluding in part that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Collier had failed to establish a violation of the Eighth … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must decide whether (1) the facts shown by the plaintiff “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “the right at issue was ‘clearly

Guang Lin-Zheng v. Attorney General of the United States

557 F.3d 147 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2009

According to Lin-Zheng, his wife’s treatment in China allowed him to establish his own persecution, thus allowing him to qualify for asylum under the broadened definition of “refugee” contained in amendments to 8 U.S.C. § … In addition, since Lin-Zheng must establish he is a "refugee,” to qualify for either asylum or withholding of removal, we will simplify by using "asylum” to refer to both claims unless otherwise indicated. 2 .

Michael Siluk, Jr. v. Catherine Merwin

783 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2015

Although Congress was concerned that prisoners would pay their-filing fee, Congress was clearly not as concerned about when the payment occurred. … Accordingly, Merwin, in her official capacity as Director of the Perry County Domestic Relations Section, is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

International Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators v. United Contractors Ass'n

483 F.2d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 1973

This competition is clearly not the concern of the antitrust laws. [Footnote omitted.] … For instance, if the allegations are true, then such acts would not be immune.

Eric Greene v. Superintendent Smithfield SCI

882 F.3d 443 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and that clearly established Federal law included Gray. … We thus held that Abdullah failed to establish that the “Superior Court’s decision to reject Abdullah’s confrontation claim constituted” an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.

P. Mastrippolito & Sons, Inc. v. Joseph

692 F.2d 1384 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 15, 1982

Given the obscurity of the relevant facts even at this point, we cannot say that the district court’s finding, that Mas *1388 trippolito’s action was not “clearly frivolous,” was clearly erroneous. … On this record, those findings cannot be deemed clearly erroneous.