Case law

Essential Communications Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Western Electric Company and New Jersey Bell Telephone Company

610 F.2d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 1979

our complex national economy. 6 A fair approach in the accommodation between the seemingly disparate goals of regulation and competition should be to assume that competition, and thus antitrust law, does operate unless clearly … For the first time, federal law imposed an obligation to interconnect or establish through routes with other common carriers. See 47 U.S.C. § 201 (a) (1976).

Jersey Land and Development Corporation, a New Jersey Corp. v. United States

539 F.2d 311 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 1976

Moreover, Jersey Land never established a sales office, advertised the property or otherwise operated as a typical real estate business. … These underlying findings of fact, it claims, are fully supported in the record and thus cannot be said to be clearly erroneous.

Melvin E. Wilkerson v. Edward Klem Attorney General of Pennsylvania

412 F.3d 449 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 2005

It must contradict “clearly established” decisions of the United States Supreme Court alone. 1 Id. … Accordingly, the state court decision we review is not “contrary to ... clearly established” Supreme Court law.

R I Inc v. Michael McCarthy

483 F. App'x 745 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 29, 2012

is not clearly established. … “A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’”

Garbacik v. Janson

111 F. App'x 91 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 2004

Janson and Minanno argue that, for qualified immunity purposes, it was not clearly established at the time of the incident in this case whether § 1983 liability could lie for failure to intervene. See Anderson v. … ’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken” (citations omitted)).

Univ Pgh v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 2, 2007

According to the University, tenure fosters an environment of free inquiry because, once conferred, it affords faculty “rights and immunities,” including immunity from termination except for cause or financial exigency. … United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978) (discussing the definition of “wages” and noting “many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages”).

Frank Suarez v. City of Bayonne

566 F. App'x 181 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 7, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … With respect to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity question, “[t]he factors relevant to the excessive force analysis are well-recognized.” Couden, 446 F.3d at 497.

Tallos v. CSX Intermodal, Inc.

56 F. App'x 77 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 9, 2003

The District Court held that Intermodal was the statutory employer of Tallos and thereby entitled to tort immunity. We will affirm. I. … Vertical privity is clearly established because Parsec is acting as a subcontractor of CSLT, who is a subcontractor of Intermodal. That is precisely the state of facts that led the District Court to its conclusion.

Miller v. Indiana Hospital

843 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 22, 1988

He established a practice in Indiana, Pennsylvania in 1959 after obtaining staff privileges in the Department of Surgery at Indiana Hospital. 1 Indiana Hospital is the only general hospital in the County of Indiana, a county … We explained that "we do not doubt that a hospital could exclude an applicant from staff privileges either because he is not medically qualified or because of unprofessional conduct, so long as the hospital applies the same

Lee Hill, in No. 18992, Johnny Clark, Floyd Norfleet, Norman Wilson, Thomas Kelly v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Appeal of Johnny Clark in No. 18993. Appeal of Floyd Norfleet in No. 18994. Appeal of Norman Wilson in No. 18995. Appeal of Thomas Kelly in No. 18996. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. v. Paul Leonard, in No. 19215, Lawrence Y. Lingard, Jerry B. Williams, Frederick T. Wims, Francis Rolls, Thomas E. Bell. Appeal of Lwrence Y. Lingard, in No. 19216. Appeal of Jerry B. Williams, in No. 19217. Appeal of Frederick T. Wims, in No. 19218. Appeal of Francis Rolls, in No. 19219. Appeal of Thomas E. Bell, in No. 19220. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Edward Ray, in No. 19244. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Martin Francken, in No. 19304, Arnold Walker, Alvin Rue, Alvin g.bailey, Robert Williams, Charles A. Burnett. Appeal of Arnold Walker, in No. 19305. Appeal of Alvin Rue, in No. 19306. Appeal of Alvin G. Bailey, in No. 19307. Appeal of Robert Williams, in No. 19308. Appeal of Charles A. Burnett, in No. 19309

439 F.2d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 18, 1971

Petitioners argue that since they are immune from prosecution, any proceeding in the state court will necessarily deny them their rights protected by this immunity. … to determine whether petitioners' rights have been denied nor can we clearly predict that they will be denied in the state courts.

United States v. Joseph M. McDade

28 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 9, 1994

Consequently, our decision in Helstoski I, like Brewster , clearly establishes that the Speech or Debate Clause permits proof of a defendant’s status as a member of Congress. C. … We conclude that the Speech or Debate Clause does not immunize a congressman from prosecution for interstate travel in furtherance of receipt of an unlawful gratuity, any more than it would immunize him for a charge of theft

Weldon v. Celotex Corp.

695 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 1982

If there is coverage, then the employee’s interest has been served and it is appropriate to enforce the reciprocal benefit to the employer — immunity from tort liability for the same injury. … The Act was amended in 1972 so that it is no longer necessary for a claimant to establish an “accident” in order to qualify for benefits. A work-related “injury” will suffice. Pa.Stat.

National Freight, Inc. v. Larson

760 F.2d 499 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 23, 1985

If Congress, in section 2311(b), had already required states to permit these vehicles on all of their public highways, there would clearly be no need for section 2312. … This is clearly accomplished by requiring all states to permit the operation of 48-foot trailers and twin trailers on any segment of the National Network.

Rancourt Woodell v. Wetzel

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 6, 2022

Dist., 969 F.3d 120, 124 (3d Cir. 2020). 4  State officials have qualified immunity from claims for monetary relief if their conduct “does not violate a clearly established … Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 358 (3d Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted), Woodell has not cited, and we cannot locate, any precedent that clearly establishes that it violates the First Amendment for the DOC to use

Florida East Coast Railway Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, Third Party Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, and Troup Bros., Inc., Third Party

519 F.2d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 1975

from liability for the result of its negligence and particularly whether the damages to Florida East Coast were caused by "floods or flood waters" within the meaning of section 702c was not so clearly established as to render … Upon a thorough review of the record, however, we conclude that the findings of the trial judge in this regard were not clearly erroneous. 44 65 VI.

Justin Sharratt v. John Murtha

437 F. App'x 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 14, 2011

To rebut Murtha‟s assertion of qualified immunity, Sharratt must 1) sufficiently plead a violation of a constitutional right and 2) demonstrate that such right was “clearly established” at the time of Murtha‟s alleged … Therefore, we conclude that Murtha was entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, which the District Court then properly dismissed.

Moses President v. Government of the Virgin Islands

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

law qualified immunity, or the applicable duty for the negligence claims raised here. … immunity to those claims.

Muth v. Central Bucks School District

839 F.2d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 29, 1988

which is involved in the education or care of the child, or 27 (2) By any person having a personal or professional interest which would conflict with his or her objectivity in the hearing. 28 (b) A person who otherwise qualifies … Dartmouth School Comm., 775 F.2d 411 , 422 (1st Cir.1985), that Congress clearly contemplated litigation under the Act against a state in the federal courts.

Jackson v. Tinicum

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2009

At the close of discovery, the Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … We do have jurisdiction, however, “to review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Ziccardi v.

Jackson v. Tinicum Township

310 F. App'x 510 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2009

At the close of discovery, the Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … We do have jurisdiction, however, “to review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Ziccardi v.