Case law

Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. The Township of Hampton, the Township of Hampton Council and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

411 F.3d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 2005

In this land use appeal, ASI alleged that the Township acted arbitrarily and capriciously and abused its discretion by determining that the travel agency qualified as a school and that the museum qualified as a public park … In sum, because only certain forms of relief are clearly available in the land use appeal, 16 we will affirm only the District *415 Court’s decision to abstain from ASI’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief relating

Situ Wilkinson v. Attorney General United States

131 F.4th 134 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 11, 2025

removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative in the United States. … that he qualified for that relief.

United States of America Government of the Virgin Islands v. Michael McKie at No. 96-7010, Jermaine Hall, at No. 96-7011, Guy M. Henry, at No. 96-7014

112 F.3d 626 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 8, 1997

A balancing of the “opportunities for knowledge” reveals it is far easier for the defendant to know of, and assert, firearm *631 possession under twenty-four hours than it is for the government to establish possession for … As stated by one Virgin Islands senator, “[W]ith a loophole as big as the one that is currently on the books that allow[s] for a 24 hour reporting period you can clearly see that anyone at any time can easily utilize that

Bernardo Castillo v. Attorney General United States

729 F.3d 296 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 3, 2013

The respondent has the burden of establishing his eligibility for any requested relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). … That is clearly a question of federal, not state law, but it is not one directly answered in the INA or the BIA’s opinion in Eslamizar.

Ricker v. Weston

27 F. App'x 113 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 24, 2002

DISCUSSION The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability so long as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, qualified immunity is unavailable where (1) the plaintiff has alleged a violation of an actual constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established when allegedly violated. Wilson v.

Carteret Savings Bank, FA v. Office of Thrift Supervision

963 F.2d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 7, 1992

Ryan, 928 F.2d 994, 1003 (11th Cir.1991), the Eleventh Circuit stated that “[t]he language of § 401(g) does not clearly convey a congressional intention to qualify the phase-out of supervisory goodwill or any of the other … Beginning then, certain qualifying intangibles can be included on a declining basis until, by January 1, 1995, the [core capital requirement] must be met without any qualifying intangibles. H.R.Rep.

Pulice v. Enciso

39 F. App'x 692 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2002

Second, is the right clearly established insofar as a reasonable official would understand that his actions are violating that right? Id. at 202. … Pulice after she attempted to take Officer Enciso’s gun did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Under the circumstances, the officers were justified in reacting as they did to Ms.

Idahoan Fresh v. Advantage Produce

157 F.3d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 6, 1998

On June 5, 1997, CHR filed an objection to the Joint Motion and served discovery requests upon Advantage seeking documents which established the alleged qualified status of the creditors set forth in the Joint Motion. … [T]he secretary is required to establish, through rulemaking, the time by which, the parties to a transaction must agree payment on a transaction must be made, to qualify it for coverage under the trust.

Trailways Lines, Inc. v. Trailways, Inc. Joint Council of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio, Clc

785 F.2d 101 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 14, 1986

Neither case dispels the Blassie requirement of current employment to qualify for the § 302(c)(5) exemption. See also Todd v. … be established only for purposes which Congress considered proper and expended only for the purposes for which they were established.”

Watson v. United States

355 F.2d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 22, 1965

In 1956, the company and the United Mine Workers Union established a pension plan for certain qualified employees. … It concerned the establishment of a college for the poor.

The United States of America v. Hart, Orlando

693 F.2d 286 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 19, 1982

a defendant with mail fraud, it must at a minimum clearly and explicitly prove that the mailing occurred. … The lower court committed error in refusing to permit Hart to present the testimony of Paul Osborne, which testimony would have established that James Davis, a key government witness testifying under a grant of immunity,

Juliana Arreaga Bravo v. Attorney General United States

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

To qualify for relief under CAT, an individual must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see Kaplun v. … Next, the IJ assesses whether the likely response from public officials qualifies as acquiescence under the governing regulations. . . .

Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Health Emergency Medical Services Training Institute

318 F.3d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 22, 2003

The requirements for establishing a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are clear. … away from liability or clearly toward it, only at the ends of the tort law’s spectrum of culpability.”

Dawn Ball v. Lt. Hummel

577 F. App'x 96 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 2014

Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 1 Ball qualifies financially to proceed IFP, but because she has accumulated “three strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), see Ball v. … Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (“An allegation of a recent brutal beating, combined with three separate threatening incidents, some of which involved officers who purportedly participated in that beating, is clearly

Phila Marine v. Comm IRS

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 15, 2008

The statute at issue here is 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), by which the United States has waived sovereign immunity. … principle that Congress must clearly indicate its intent to repeal a common-law rule.

Shell Petroleum, Inc., and Subsidiary Corporations v. United States

182 F.3d 212 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 24, 1999

Congress clearly distinguished tar sand oil from crude oil and considered tar sand oil a crude oil substitute. … In any event, this brief also fails to assert Shell’s position clearly.

John Fuller v. Christopher Narkin

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 7, 2020

Accordingly, the District Court denied Narkin qualified immunity because it is clearly established that an officer may not use force on a suspect who has surrendered. This interlocutory appeal followed. II. … We “possess jurisdiction to review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right,” however “we lack jurisdiction to consider

Paul Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corporation

738 F.2d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 18, 1984

(8) All documents that have been or will be shown to the expert during or in preparation of the expert's testimony at deposition or trial. 13 (9) All documents, including a curriculum vitae, that plaintiffs contend will establish … I conclude in this case that it is the attorney work product-qualified immunity which must give way. 24 Tr. at 35-36, App.F. 25 Thus, it is apparent that the district court ordered production of the documents because it construed

Son Duc Tran v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States

414 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 12, 2005

He was not prosecuted in Michigan, and seems to have been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. … This language leaves open the door for an argument that reckless conduct qualifies as the “use of force.”

United States v. Jesse James Risha

445 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 24, 2006

Caito was represented by the same attorney in the state court prosecution and the federal grant of immunity. … We note that the government has asserted that it "does not challenge as clearly erroneous any of the district court's factual findings.” .