Case law

Rose Zurzola and Matthew Zurzola, Husband and Wife v. General Motors Corporation, in 73-1983 v. Matthew Zurzola, Third-Party-Defendant, and Jack Mutchnick and Deville Leasing Corporation, Third-Party-Defendants. Appeal of Jack Mutchnick, in 73-1959. Rose Zurzola v. Jack Mutchnick, and Deville Leasing Corporation v. Matthew Zurzola, Third-Party-Defendant

503 F.2d 403 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 1974

Following the precedent established in Emery v. … Since Puller clearly contemplated that the husband could not recover directly from his wife even in these circumstances, Justice Roberts' theory would narrow the scope of interspousal immunity.

69 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 81, 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,758 Simon A. Barber, No. 94-3604 v. Csx Distribution Services, a Unit of Csx Transportation, Inc. Csx Transportation, Inc., No. 94-3653

68 F.3d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 16, 1995

That interview report, dated April 5, 1990, stated that Barber was "qualified but [did] not possess the credentials of Kathy Ball" who was selected. … We agree with the district court's conclusion that Barber established a prima facie case.

Kerusenko v. New Jersey

115 F. App'x 583 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 18, 2004

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Accordingly, Appellees Parenti and Parmenter are entitled to qualified immunity.

Stephen B. Batoff, ph.d. v. State Farm Insurance Company, Leonard M. Paul, ed.d

977 F.2d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 23, 1992

Thus, in Lunderstadt our conclusion that a claim was not “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” established the federal jurisdiction because issues remained with the court which legitimately could be reached on the merits. … McWilliams, 379 Pa.Super. 150, 161-65 , 549 A.2d 950, 956-57 (1988), he is immune from liability to Batoff.

Brown v. Muhlenberg Twp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 23, 2001

IV Let me amplify my earlier analysis explaining the second prong -- the clearly established prong-- of the qualified immunity doctrine. … the clearly established element of the immunity doctrine.

Dooley v. Roche Lab Inc.

275 F. App'x 162 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 2008

First, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination — i.e., that (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for promotion to the sought — after position and applied but was not promoted … Dooley clearly satisfied the first element of her prima facie case, but the District Court held that she failed to establish the second element: that she was qualified for the position of Oncology Specialist. Ms.

John Hart v. Steven Parkinson

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 31, 2024

immunity when they act in an objectively reasonable manner, as measured against the legal rules that were clearly established when they acted. … Accordingly, qualified immunity protects the Detectives from liability relating to Hart’s claims about the warrants.

United States v. Peppers

273 F. App'x 155 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 2008

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Peppers has established neither. III. … Nor has Peppers established prejudice.

Freehold Cogeneration Associates, L.P. v. Board Of Regulatory Commissioners Of The State Of New Jersey

44 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

The present attempt to either modify the PPA or revoke BRC approval is "utility-type" regulation--exactly the type of regulation from which Freehold is immune under section 210(e). … That section provides: Any person (including the Secretary) may bring an action against any electric utility, qualifying small power producer, or qualifying cogenerator to enforce any requirement established by a State regulatory

Gen Refractories Co v. Firemans Fund Ins

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2003

While some communications may be privileged — allowing, for instance, immunity from defamation actions — conduct is clearly susceptible to being punishable as abuse. See Brown v. Del. … Such a proposition is clearly not supportable.

Lester H. ex rel. Octavia P. v. Gilhool

916 F.2d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 27, 1990

Because everyone already agreed on that point, that clearly was not what Lester needed. What he needed was substantive relief because the school district failed to find an appropriate IEP. … Healthy, we conclude that a “significant amount of” state funding does not outweigh the established independent nature of a Pennsylvania school district. 429 U.S. at 280 , 97 S.Ct. at 573.

Darren Eades v. John Wetzel

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” James v. N.J. … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015)).1 “[C]learly established rights are 1 There are two prongs to the qualified-immunity analysis: the plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,

Little Rock School District v. James Mauney, Mr. And Mrs., Parents of J. M., James Mauney, Mr. And Mrs., Parents of J. M., Third Party v. State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Education, Third Party

183 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 10, 1999

We disagree. 11 Seminole Tribe established a two-part inquiry for identifying effective abrogation of states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit: first, whether Congress "unequivocally expresse[d] its intent to abrogate … supplies the other "well-established" exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Robinson v. Lehman

771 F.2d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 1985

We also hold that the district court’s finding of insufficient evidence to establish pretext is not “clearly erroneous.” See Bellissimo v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 764 F.2d 175, 180 (3d Cir.1985). … Eligibles were ranked into two groups: "highly qualified” and "qualified." App. at 1436. .

Angela Robinson v. Eric Hicks

450 F. App'x 168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 8, 2011

Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity depends upon (1) whether the facts as alleged in the complaint make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether “the right was clearly established . . … Qualified immunity shields an official from suit if he could have reasonably believed that the actions in question were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the official possessed at the time.

Durkin v. The National Bank Of Olyphant

772 F.2d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1985

The current version of Sec. 61 was thus clearly designed to curb the power of those who control the affairs of national banks. 9 We must define the scope of Sec. 61 voting rights in a fashion consistent with Congress' articulated … Banks do not exist for the purpose of creating an aristocracy of directors and officers which can continue in office indefinitely, immune from the wishes of the shareholder-owners of the corporation.

Greene v. Palakovich

606 F.3d 85 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 28, 2010

It has also held that all Supreme Court jurisprudence that would “qualify as an old rule under [its] Teague jurisprudence w[ould] constitute ‘clearly established Federal law ... ’ under § 2254(d)(1).” Id. … Justice O’Connor’s opinion stated that "whatever would qualify as an old rule under our Teague jurisprudence will constitute 'clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States' under

Elanith Valansi v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

278 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 2002

A conviction establishing that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud his or her employer qualifies as an offense that involves fraud or deceit, and therefore as an aggravated felony. … But never do they demonstrate clearly that Valansi’s specific intent was to defraud the bank.

Bellissimo v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

764 F.2d 175 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 11, 1985

She established that she was within a protected class, women, and that Westinghouse fired her from her job within the Legal Department even though she was qualified to work as an attorney there. … With deference to the clearly erroneous standard, we are convinced that Ms. Bellissimo failed to establish the pretextual nature of Westinghouse’s reason for discharge.

Warren Curtis v. Angus Russell Everette

489 F.2d 516 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 17, 1973

However, this should not be construed to mean that every tort constitutes a denial of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and Laws of the United States simply because such tort is committed under … These allegations are frivolous and clearly insufficient to establish a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .