Case law

United States v. Conrad Blair

734 F.3d 218 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 4, 2013

The Court also held that Blair’s four 1991 robbery convictions “at a minimum” established three separate violent felonies under ACCA. (App. at 18.) … Aggravated assault is classified as a felony in the first or second degree, id. § 2702(b), and clearly involves violence.

United States v. Gimy Rodriguez

40 F.4th 117 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 12, 2022

So when the Guidelines establish a “predominantly fact-driven test,” we review the District Court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts for clear error. Id. … Rather, a defendant who meets the definition of an ‘organizer’ or ‘leader’ qualifies for the four-point enhancement.” Id. at *7. (internal citation omitted).

Dee v. Borough of Dunmore

549 F.3d 225 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 4, 2008

In Miller , a former employee of the Clinton County probation office sought to establish a property interest in her continued employment. … Kacal, 928 F.2d 697, 701-02 (5th Cir.1991) ("To establish the [plus] portion of the stigma plus infringement test, a claimant must establish that the state sought to remove or significantly alter a life, liberty, or property

Edward Forchion v. City of Trenton

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 2, 2022

“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”11 … no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”15 The district court concluded that Forchion’s procedural

In Re: City Phila Litigation

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 1995

If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he "could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to … qualified immunity.

Andrews v. United States

801 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 1986

II The following facts were stipulated to by the parties or were found by the district court and are not clearly erroneous. … Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by not holding the United States negligent for its failure to establish and maintain a warning system at the dam sufficient to alert boaters who were unfamiliar with the river

United States v. Franklin Evon Sebetich A/K/A Frank, Earl Dean, Jr., A/K/A Dooney, Michael John Buhovecky

776 F.2d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 31, 1985

This circumstance alone does not establish a violation of due process. … On the other hand, if the district court found that Fleming clearly indicated to Mrs.

Schumacher v. Nix

965 F.2d 1262 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 3, 1992

Therefore, although the rule "clearly discourage[d] plaintiff from traveling to South Carolina for the purpose of establishing a residence," the court held that rational basis review applied. … Therefore, it is unrebutted. 4 The complaint also alleges that Rule 203(a)(2)(ii) violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, U.S. Const. art.

A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co. v. Philip Morris Inc.

263 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 2001

Midcal To qualify as state action under the Midcal test, "the challenged restraint must be one 'clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy.'" 445 U.S. at 104 (quoting City of Lafayette v. La. … In each of these cases, the decision by the state to allow, or even to create, an anticompetitive scheme did not establish immunity.

Kramer D. Arnold, Administrator of the Estate of Howard A. Brown, Deceased v. Emily F. Loose, of the Estate of Warren L. Loose, Deceased

352 F.2d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 10, 1965

On the contrary, the attorney who presents a medical expert has the initial burden of establishing his qualifications to render an opinion in a particular field. … Yund believed himself qualified is of no significance. The trial judge was clearly within his discretion and we find no error. One more point must be made in regard to Dr. Yund’s opinion.

Flory v. Pinnacle Health Hospital[s]

346 F. App'x 872 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 30, 2009

. § 951 et seq. 2 The Court granted Pinnacle’s motion for summary judgment on all three causes of action, concluding that Flory: (1) failed to establish that she was “qualified” for her position as required for her discriminatory … of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a). *876 To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she: (1) has a disability; (2) is a qualified individual; and (3) has suffered an

Janice Bowers Wolk v. Unum Life Insurance of America

186 F.3d 352 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1999

According to Wolk: [i]f UNUM’s interpretation were correct, the language would read that an *357 sole beneficiaries were company's owners cannot qualify as an “employee benefit plan” under ERISA; nor can employers qualify … Co., 969 F.2d 178, 185-86 (6th Cir.1992) (health insurance plan whose sole beneficiaries were company's owners cannot qualify as an “employee benefit plan” under ERISA; nor can employers qualify as "participants” of an ERISA

Foreman v. Bur Prisons

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 16, 2007

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. … If so, the court must determine whether the right violated was “clearly established” in light of the specific context of the case. Id.

Jilin Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. v. Chertoff

447 F.3d 196 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 10, 2006

Accordingly, it determined that the only acts “immunized from review by § 1252” are those constituting “‘matters of pure discretion, rather than discretion guided by legal standards.’” Id. … Addressing § 1155, the ANA International court then held that within this statute Congress clearly “authorize[d] some measure of discretion” by using the phrase “may, at any time, for what he deems to be.” Id. at 893.

Carmen Sexton v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 23, 2025

The District Court also correctly determined that the individually named Treasury/AG Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General of the United States

663 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 8, 2011

To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must establish a “clear probability of persecution,” i.e., that it is more likely than not, that s/he would suffer persecution upon returning home. See INS v. … The BIA rejected that grouping as qualifying for relief under the INA.

Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc. v. Califano

698 F.2d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 19, 1983

The administrative structure established under Medicare made it quite difficult for CHS to get an answer to the above question. … The dissent asserts that the petitioner must qualify for a substantive entitlement before governmental estoppel lies.

Lee v. Schweiker

739 F.2d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 1984

The bankruptcy court rejected a defense based on sovereign immunity, citing 11 U.S.C. § 106 . This ruling was clearly correct. See In re Neavear, 674 F.2d 1201, 1203-04 (7th Cir.1982). … The purpose of these payments is to provide income to qualifying individuals.

Jean Junior Jeune v. Attorney General of the United States

476 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 20, 2007

We held that there are two routes by which an offense may qualify as an aggravated felony. Id. … Moreover, the criminal complaint clearly establishes that Garcia did in fact sell drugs to an undercover officer.

Horizons International, Inc. v. Baldrige

811 F.2d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 28, 1987

Sec. 65 (1982), such registration did not confer immunity from public or private antitrust enforcement. … The Webb-Pomerene Act did not immunize its beneficiaries from enforcement under section 5.