Case law

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).

Alcoa Inc v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

, the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 for the taxable year shall be the tax provided in paragraph (b) of this section. 26 C.F.R. § 1.1341-1(a)(1) (emphasis added).7 Clearly … Clearly, to restore something to another means to give it to the person who either once had it or should have had it all along – in this case, the person with the actual claim of right to the item of income.

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.

Kimberlee Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC

765 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 3, 2014

Thus, in construing the federal RICO law, this Circuit has rejected the argument that personal injuries qualify as RICO injuries to “business or property.” See, e.g., Maio v. … The New Jersey litigation privilege does not immunize systematic fraud directed at adversarial parties and the courts.

Coughlin, James and Coughlin, Patricia, His Wife v. Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable Inc.

780 F.2d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 1986

The earlier Constitution was thus clearly more concerned with preventing limitations on the press than with curbing potential abuses by the press. … On its face, that section would require only that the press not be absolutely immune from libel and defamation actions. Clearly, the Shield Law would not violate this reading of art. I, § 7.

United States v. Brook Contracting Corp.

759 F.2d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 18, 1985

We stated: [B]ecause the judgment fixes [the contractor’s] ultimate liability and clearly establishes the parameters of that liability, it is a final, appealable order. … Numerous tests, including a reflectant’s analysis and a point *324 count analysis, also established that anthracite silt was coal. Id. This court affirmed the finding as not being clearly erroneous. 747 F.2d at 897.

Kornegay v. Cottingham

120 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 1997

The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment based upon their assertion of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity turns on the reasonableness of the officers' belief that their conduct was legal not its legality per se.

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.

Melissa Lee Rothermel v. Dauphin County

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 24, 2021

“[Q]ualified 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.” … Whether qualified immunity applies depends on “(1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s conduct

Roberts v. Fleet Bank (R.I.)

342 F.3d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 27, 2003

On the back of the invitation Fleet listed the “TERMS OF PRE-QUALIFIED OFFER” and the “CONSUMER INFORMATION” sections. … With that background established, we agree with Roberts that the claims in the introductory letter that the “fixed 7.99% APR”3 is “NOT an introductory offer” and “won’t go up in just a few short months” could cause a reasonable

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

Bradley v. United States

299 F.3d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

The District Court concluded that even if Bradley had made out a prima facie claim of a constitutional violation, the three named customs inspectors would be entitled to qualified immunity. … We note, however, that in April 1999, when Bradley arrived at the Newark International Airport, there was no law post- Montoya de Hernandez, much less "clearly established" law, that at our nation's borders even an intrusive

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.

Bautista v. Attorney General of the United States

744 F.3d 54 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2014

(setting imprisonment at one year or more to qualify under this subsection). … Clearly, "described in”, as used in the penultimate sentence, means the actual conduct enumerated in § 101(a)(43), rather than conduct not directly referenced in the subsection. .

United States v. 13,255.53 Acres of Land in Burlington & Ocean Counties

158 F.2d 874 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 31, 1946

Evidence as to the cost of the cabin to Schwartz was not allowed, on the ground that it did not establish its true value at the taking date. … We are not at all convinced that a sound basis for judging the value of the property was established by either of the experts.

Charles Morgan v. Michael Fiorentino, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 27, 2020

“The doctrine of 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.” … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, we ask “(1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official

Schneider v. Fried

320 F.3d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 18, 2003

Reis was qualified to give expert testimony. … The record establishes that as an invasive cardiologist, who normally diagnoses heart conditions, Dr.

Angeline OSTAPOWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHNSON BRONZE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant

541 F.2d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 1976

After a five-day qualifying period on the machine, the employee was required to demonstrate his ability to both set-up and operate the machine. … The findings of fact which support these conclusions must be shown to be clearly erroneous in order to be overturned. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). As we stated in Krasnov v.

Quintez Talley v. John E. Wetzel

15 F.4th 275 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 27, 2021

Circuit and hold that a dismissal due to the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims does not qualify the case as a strike under the PLRA.”). … While Talley also argues that the District Court clearly erred when finding that amendment of his complaint would have been futile, this argument is based on the Talley II court’s alleged lack of personal jurisdiction over

Bayer v. Monroe County Children & Youth Services

414 F. App'x 431 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2011

Though Dry and Bahl claimed that they were immune from plaintiffs‟ action, the District Court ruled that neither was entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity, and that plaintiffs could present evidence in support … We held that even assuming “that plaintiffs had a constitutional right to a post-deprivation hearing within 72 hours and that this right was clearly established at the relevant time, we consider it objectively reasonable