Case law

Cole v. Montague Board of Education

145 F. App'x 760 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 2005

The Coles next contend that defendant Loevlie is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Reply Br. … Government officials are generally shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Smith v.

United States v. Milton Edward Bailey

581 F.2d 341 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 11, 1978

In that case, the witness had been convicted and had been granted immunity in order to compel him to testify before the grand jury. … But under the recent cases the impact of the clause clearly extends beyond the confines of the hearsay rule.

In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation

723 F.2d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 1983

These findings are clearly erroneous. Mr. Shimizu's signature on the document and the fact that he attended the meeting establish both authorship and personal knowledge. … The trial court's findings about DSS 98 are clearly erroneous.

Reppert v. Marino

259 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 27, 2007

The District Court granted summary judgment to .defendant Lake on count one (illegal arrest) based on qualified immunity, and granted summary judgment on counts five (civil conspiracy), six (policy of racial profiling) and … This portion of Devanney’s testimony therefore qualifies as an admission of a party-opponent.

Herr v. Pequea Township

274 F.3d 109 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2001

The defendants claimed qualified immunity. … , such an arbitrary abuse of governmental power would clearly exceed the scope of qualified immunity.

Adams v. New Jersey Brewery Employees' Pension Trust Fund, Local Union 843

670 F.2d 387 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 1982

The Ninth Circuit cases cited by the plaintiff class are less clearly on point. In Lee v. … Each of these cases can be clearly distinguished from the case at hand, and none contravenes our analysis. .

Wawel Savings Bank v. Jersey Tractor Trailer Training, Inc. (In Re Jersey Tractor Trailer Training, Inc.)

580 F.3d 147 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 1, 2009

The Bankruptcy Court first accepted, for purposes of its analysis, that the invoices associated with JTTT’s accounts receivable qualified the accounts receivable as “instruments.” … Each facsimile clearly identified the originating party as ‘Yale Factors NJ LLC,” and so too did the official record that was mailed to the bank.

Heilman v. United States

731 F.2d 1104 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 1984

Although the original misdiagnosis occurred during military service and thus was clearly precluded by Feres, Henning alleged that the doctors were further negligent in failing to warn him of his condition after discharge. … For sensible reasons, the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the general liability established by the FTCA, when it held in Feres v.

John Hart v. Kathryn Gordon

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 6, 2026

Further, Gordon was entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest and false imprisonment claims. … It was not clearly established that the absence of jurisdiction, un- der the circumstances presented, negates probable cause. See Lozano, 9 F.4th at 245–46.

Dancy v. Collier

266 F. App'x 102 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 20, 2008

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 2 As the District Court explained, the referral … The inquiry into the applicability of qualified immunity is twofold: (1) whether the plaintiff demonstrated the deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was established at the time of the alleged

Lin-Zheng v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2009

According to Lin-Zheng, his wife’s 4 treatment in China allowed him to establish his own persecution, thus allowing him to qualify for asylum under the broadened definition of “refugee … In addition, since Lin-Zheng must establish he is a “refugee,” to qualify for either asylum or withholding of removal, we will simplify by using “asylum” to refer to both claims unless otherwise indicated.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

723 F.2d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 1983

The trial court’s contrary finding is clearly erroneous. … These findings are clearly erroneous. Mr. Shimizu’s signature on the document and the fact that he attended the meeting establish both authorship and personal knowledge.

Woodwind Estates, Ltd. v. Gretkowski

205 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2000

The test for determining whether government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, as set forth in Harlow v. … The District Court did not specifically address the issue of whether the planning commissioners were entitled to qualified immunity.

Town Court Nursing Center, Inc. v. Beal

586 F.2d 280 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 13, 1978

The distinction between qualified and unqualified homes is not marked by a bright line. … Clearly, what the majority characterizes as a recipient's right to obtain medical care from a "freely selected provider" is limited to a choice among institutions which have been determined by the Secretary to be "qualified

34 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1161, prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,036 Billy Eugene Sullivan v. Rowan Companies, Inc., Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Defendant-Third-Party-Defendant-Appellee

952 F.2d 141 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 1992

Lack of a warning, standing alone, does not establish all of the elements necessary to prevail on this claim. … A finding of fact is clearly erroneous "only if our review of the entire record impels the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Carr v.

United States v. Neal Thomas Neamand

452 F.2d 25 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 16, 1971

does not indicate the basis for its decision clearly enough to foreclose the possibility that it relied on an erroneous ground. … The effect of Jihlert is that a belated crystallization will not qualify under § 1625.2.

Priscilla Smith v. Township of Clinton

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 6, 2019

Qualified immunity applies unless: (1) the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Pearson v. … Our conclusion that Officer Sangiovanni is entitled to qualified immunity does not resolve the claims against the municipal defendants, which cannot assert a qualified immunity defense to claims under § 1983.

Robert Perry Dehart v. Martin Horn, Commissioner of Corrections James S. Price, Supeintendent of Sci Greene United States of America

227 F.3d 47 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 2000

“Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, ... including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” O’Lone v. … Coughlin, 976 F.2d 98 (2d Cir.1992) (per curiam) (clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that “prison officials must provide a prisoner a diet that is consistent with his religious scruples”). 9 .

Jason Spears v. Pasquale Leporace

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 3, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … However, an immunity defense ordinarily fails where the law is clearly established, because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Id.

United States v. Maria Rodriguez De Lazo Appeal of Angel Perez in No. 73-1712. Appeal of Joshua Moore in No. 73-1793

497 F.2d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 30, 1974

Named in the indictment as co-conspirators were Maria De Lazo, Norma Hunter, George Walcott, Carrie Wilkerson, and Edelberto Esquijarosa. 1 Susan Boehlke and Mei Ling Moy were unindicted co-conspirators who were given immunity … The testimony of co-conspirators Susan Boehlke and Mei Ling Moy clearly establishes the existence of the alleged conspiracy and Moore’s connection with it as one of the principal distributors of the cocaine after it arrived