Case law

Antoinette Connie Anela v. City of Wildwood Maureen McDonnell Cole v. City of Wildwood Roxann Cox Cole v. City of Wildwood Appeal of Antoinette Connie Anela, Angela Dipietro, Maureen McDonnell Lisa Tortis Cole, Gina Bucceri and Roxann Cox Cole

790 F.2d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 22, 1986

It dismissed this claim as to the individual defendants on the ground that they enjoyed qualified immunity as officials exercising discretionary functions. 5 Thereafter, the case went to trial on two issues, the due process … City of Cincinnati, --- U.S. ---, ---, 106 S.Ct. 1292, n. 10 , 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986) 4 The court entered summary judgment for the city police officers on the ground of qualified immunity under Harlow v.

Antonio Nieves and Ellen Schuster Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation. Samuel Cotto v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation. Joseph R. Taylor v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation. George Thomas v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation. Phillip Scotland and Pearline Scotland v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation, Pauliphy Prevost v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation

819 F.2d 1237 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 1987

Although one can make arguments for a contrary policy, it is clearly rational to conclude that the public interest of the Virgin Islands population is better served by denying immunity to the borrowing employer. … has been its intent all along, which it clearly is here.

In Re Air Crash Disaster At Mannheim Germany On 9/11/82.

769 F.2d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 1985

established by Feres v. … Clearly, however, where recovery is sought against a military contractor, no separation of powers concern arises unless the design in question represents a judgment by the military.

Rosen v. Hotel Employees Union

637 F.2d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 1981

Under the circumstances Rosen’s detrimental reliance on Civatte’s action was clearly reasonable. 8 *598 17. … On applying the law of estoppel in the area of pension agreements the court said: The sui generis nature of the pension agreement ... should not immunize it from the equitable principles that govern similar agreements.

Nancy O'Mara Ezold, at No. 91-1780 v. Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, at No. 91-1741

983 F.2d 509 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 3, 1993

The plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by showing that she is a member of a protected class; that she was qualified for and rejected for the position; and that non-members of the protected class were treated more … Temple Univ., 778 F.2d 955 , 962 (3d Cir.1985), such a dispute will satisfy the plaintiffs prima facie hurdle of establishing qualification as long as the plaintiff demonstrates that “[s]he was sufficiently qualified to be

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company v. United States

432 F.2d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 13, 1970

In view of this evidence, we certainly cannot say that the District Court’s finding of no substantial value was clearly erroneous. … The expense of this reorganization should clearly not be charged against the income of any one year.

Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, Inc., in the Matter of Establishment Inspection Of: D/B/A Wedgewood Pharmacy v. United States

421 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 1, 2005

Thus, Congress clearly stated by the very terms of the 1962 amendments that those amendments were not intended to alter the FDA’s preexisting authority. … "An abuse of discretion arises when 'the District Court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.’ " Id.

In Re APA Transport Corp. Consolidated Litigation

541 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2008

. § 2101 , et seq., which requires that an employer provide 60 days’ notice before a plant shutdown unless the employer qualifies for certain exceptions. … But APA Transport does not contend that it qualifies for the “unforeseen business circumstances” exception.

Menkowitz v. Pottstown Memorial Medical Center

154 F.3d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 1998

As both the language of Title III and its legislative history clearly demonstrate, the phrase "clients or customers," which only appears in 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (b)(1)(A)(iv), is not a general circumscription of Title III and … We have held that in order to establish a violation under this section, the plaintiff must prove: 47 (1) that he is a "handicapped individual" under the Act, (2) that he is "otherwise qualified" for the position sought, (

United States v. St. John's General Hospital

875 F.2d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 1989

Such evidence is clearly inadequate to raise an issue of fact precluding a grant of summary judgment. … The circumstances here clearly establish that there was no unjust enrichment. Cross-claimants had either actual or constructive notice of the government’s claim at the time of each transfer. While St.

Bonnie Susan Polsky v. Radio Shack

666 F.2d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 17, 1981

The court stated that “[t]o adopt plaintiff’s approach, at least in the case of a release which clearly sets forth an employee’s rights under § 7321 and states the signer acted without duress, would be effectively to ban … Duress is not established merely by showing that the release was given under pressure of the financial circumstances disclosed here. 522 F.2d at 893 (emphasis supplied).

Schiavone Construction Co. And Ronald A. Schiavone, Individually, in 86-5839 v. Time, Inc., in 86-5920

847 F.2d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 10, 1988

Reports shielded by the privilege are immune from a libel suit, even if the underlying substance of the report turns out to be false. … Sentinel Publishing Co., 104 N.J. 125 , 516 A.2d 220, 233 (1986) (holding that “to overcome a qualified or conditional privilege, a plaintiff must establish that the publisher knew the statement to be false or acted in reckless

Charles A. Iadimarco v. Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster General

190 F.3d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 1999

However, the holding of Santa Fe Trail as well as the language of McDonnell Douglas itself clearly establishes that the substance of the burden-shifting analysis applies with equal force to claims of “reverse discrimination … applicant instead of a qualified [W]hite[male] applicant.”

Mark Waldorf, in No. 97-5195 v. Edward J. Shuta Carolyn Wood Kenneth C. Spence, Jr. Mary Kay Spence Borough of Kenilworth Joseph Rego Henry J. Moll Victor Smith Lawrence Stickle Charles David Joseph Ventre Thomas Neville William J. Ahern William E. Conrad Livio Mancino Gary Rowinsky Mario Dibella Vincent Scorese Harry Grapenthin Mary Kelly Richard McCormack William Holt A. Zeleniak Richard Lomax C. William Gutekunst Frederick Bailey Michael Padula Charles Scheuermann Fred Sues Joseph Walyuf Thomas McHale Philip Ernst Frank J. Mascaro Walter E. Boright, Jr. Albert Simmenroth James E. O'Brien Frank J. Johdof Raymond Blydenburgh Edward Kasbarian John J. O'LOck Edmac Enterprises Edward McDermott Mark Waldorf v. Edward J. Shuta Carolyn Wood Kenneth C. Spence, Jr. Mary Kay Spence Borough of Kenilworth Joseph Rego Henry J. Moll Victor Smith Lawrence Stickle Charles David Joseph Ventre Thomas Neville William J. Ahern William E. Conrad Livio Mancino Gary Rowinsky Mario Dibella Vincent Scorese Harry Grapenthin Mary Kelly Richard McCormack William Holt A. Zeleniak Richard Lomax C. William Gutekunst Frederick Bailey Michael Padula Charles Scheuermann Fred Sues Joseph Walyuf Thomas McHale Philip Ernst Frank J. Mascaro Walter E. Boright, Jr. Albert Simmenroth James E. O'Brien Frank J. Johdof Raymond Blydenburgh Edward Kasbarian John J. O'LOck Edmac Enterprises Edward McDermott Borough of Kenilworth, in No. 97-5222

142 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 15, 1998

The plain language of the stipulation clearly does not reserve to the Borough any right to contest liability with respect to Waldorf. … However, if the Borough simply failed to consider adopting the plans or purchasing the signs, then it could not assert an immunity defense. See Waldorf, 896 F.2d at 730, 737 .

Fitchik v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.

873 F.2d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 1989

As the majority points out, the option to invest in the CMF, if relied on, would prove too much considering that other entities that place their funds in the CMF, such as counties, municipalities, and school districts, clearly … Plaintiff has not established that New Jersey has waived its immunity by “express language.” See id.

Nijhawan v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 2, 2008

Clearly, the phrase is, as the BIA found, qualifying and does not constitute a provable element. … Accordingly, our Court’s precedent directs us to “examine the facts at issue,” because the amount of loss is a “qualifier,” not an element.4 Our case law has consistently treated the amount of loss as a qualifier

Everett v. Schramm

772 F.2d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 1985

household--$336 per month; 5 person household--$416 per month; 6 person household--$475 per month; 7 person household--$534 per month; and $54 dollars per month for each additional person, beyond 7, in the household who qualifies … See generally Shapiro, Wrong Turns: The Eleventh Amendment and the Pennhurst Case, 98 Harv.L.Rev. 61 (1984); Gibbons, The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity: A Reinterpretation, 83 Colum.L.Rev. 1889 (1983).

Mumia Abu-Jamal v. Kerestes

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 2019

“To be clearly established, the very action in question need not have 7 “[A] district court order denying a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is appealable under the collateral order doctrine … III For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss in part and affirm in part. 8 While we are obligated to define the clearly established right with specificity for the purposes of qualified immunity

United States v. Edwards

274 F. App'x 194 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 16, 2008

However, under Taylor and Shepard , the District Court need only ex *197 amine the record of the prior convictions themselves, which clearly established that on at least two occasions Edwards was convicted under state law … Edwards argues that his drug convictions are not qualifying convictions under the ACCA, but he does not contest that his two convictions for aggravated assault are qualifying convictions.

Kim Knight v. Andrew Bobanic

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 22, 2020

Applying the second “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine, the District Court granted their motion. … A right is clearly established for purposes of the qualified immunity doctrine only if every reasonable official would have understood that his or her conduct infringes that right. Zaloga v.