Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,730 results
1.44s
570 F.3d 105 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 2009
The Commonwealth relied on trial evidence already presented to establish the first two aggravating circumstances. … “The requirement that guilt of a criminal charge be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt dates at least from our early years as a Nation.”
Cited 248 timesPublishedOFI Asset Management v. Cooper Tire & Rubber
834 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 2016
In addition to establishing a heightened pleading standard, the PSLRA provides a so-called “safe harbor” that immunizes certain “forward-looking” statements from §10(b) liability. … Champion Enterprises Inc., 346 F.3d 660, 672 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[I]f the statement qualifies as ‘forward-looking’ and is accompanied by sufficient cautionary language, a defendant’s statement is protected regardless of the
Cited 64 timesPublishedRonald Muth v. Dennis Woodring
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 15, 2018
Schriver appealed and we remanded to the District Court for further consideration of whether Defendants violated Muth’s clearly established right that barred Schriver from obtaining qualified immunity. See Muth v. … On remand, the District Court concluded that Schriver was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. See Muth v. Woodring, Civ.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedGillis v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.
4 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 7, 1993
That benefit, and the funding required to pay the present value of the total of all such benefits, establishes the floor of permissibility for the transfer. … When § 1054(g) and § 1344 are read together, one finds that where a participant has qualified for an early retirement benefit prior to a termination or may thereafter qualify for that benefit by aging and giving additional
Cited 136 timesPublishedUnited States v. Josette Jacobs
431 F.3d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 2005
A promise by a law enforcement officer may qualify as coercion. United States v. Walton, 10 F.3d 1024, 1030 (3d Cir.1993); United States v. Conley, 859 F.Supp. 830, 836 (W.DJPa.1994). … Sullivan never made an express promise of immunity.
Cited 53 timesPublished750 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2014
that the Trust approved. 5 reviewed a nonrandom sample of the forms Tai submitted for this attorney and found that, in a substantial number of the cases, the measurements were not only clearly … The defendant bears the burden to establish plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35 (1993).
Cited 37 timesPublishedPennsylvania Dental Ass'n v. Medical Service Ass'n of Pennsylvania
815 F.2d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 1987
Clearly, the target, in the sense of potential adverse economic effects, was Blue Shield. … The organized dentists’ immunity contention is predicated primarily on the first amendment.
Cited 29 timesPublishedUnited States v. Byron Mitchell
365 F.3d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 29, 2004
Relationship to Established Reliable Techniques. 241 7. Degree to Which the Expert Testifying Is Qualified. 242 8. … Thus the District Court’s finding regarding the purpose of the solicitation is not clearly erroneous.
Cited 202 timesPublishedDavid W. Hampton v. International Business And Mercantile Reassurance Company
909 F.2d 1577 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 4, 1990
In 1983 and 1984, IYC could be provided to farms that had at least a three-year production history or, failing a three-year history, that had a yield established by the local ASCS committee. … Farm D-198 had the necessary three-year production history, while farm F-187 was given a yield average by the local ASCS committee to qualify for IYC.
Cited 1 timesPublishedStanton T. Story v. Warden Tom Kindt Attorney General Preate
26 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 27, 1994
The Supreme Court “assume[d]” that the studies were “both methodologically valid and adequate to establish that ‘death qualification’ in fact produces juries somewhat more ‘conviction-prone’ than ‘non-death-qualified’ juries … Pelullo, 14 F.3d 881, 887-97 (3d Cir.1994) (collateral estoppel cannot be applied against a criminal defendant to establish an element of a crime). But see Adams v.
Cited 64 timesPublishedLewis Ex Rel. Young v. Alexander
685 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 20, 2012
Such claimants may then qualify for Medicaid. See Johnson v. Guhl, 357 F.3d 403, 405 (3d. … This establishes an imminent injury in fact.
Cited 71 timesPublishedNicholas Kramer v. City of Jersey City
455 F. App'x 204 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 20, 2011
On appeal, the Officers argue that the District Court’s grant of qualified immunity was premature. … qualified immunity too early in their case.
Cited 3 timesUnpublished392 F.2d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 11, 1968
The magistrate was clearly informed in the affidavit itself of the underlying circumstances supporting affiant’s conclusions. … Justice Stewart stated: “For these reasons we hold that evidence obtained by state officers during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant’s immunity from unreasonable searches
Cited 48 timesPublished293 F.3d 683 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 12, 2002
This partial disability qualified Higgins to receive disability benefits from the Veteran’s Administration ("VA") for the remainder of his life. … We are persuaded that the collection of funds from Higgins’s inmate account by the ADTC employees was clearly a levy or a seizure required by New Jersey law. The ADTC employees further assert that N.J. Stat. Ann.
Cited 133 timesPublishedUnited States v. Matias Delerme, Jr.
457 F.2d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 14, 1972
. §. 242, prohibiting the wilful deprivation under color of. law of the rights, privileges or immunities guaranteed to an inhabitant by the Constitution, poses the single question whether there was sufficient proof that' … N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951): Accordingly, it ‘must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established. ... it must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct
Cited 57 timesPublished777 F.2d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 13, 1985
Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395 , 97 S.Ct. 1891 , 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977), in which named plaintiffs who were not qualified as over-the-road drivers could not represent a class of qualified drivers who complained of discrimination. … He stated clearly that the burden of proof was on plaintiffs.
Cited 228 timesPublishedBlunt v. Lower Merion School District
767 F.3d 247 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2014
The PDE further argued that its sovereign immunity barred the state law claims asserted against it, and that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against it. Id. … To establish that there has been a violation of § 504 of the RA, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the student was disabled; 43 (2)(s)he was “otherwise qualified” to participate in school activities; (3) the school district
Cited 854 timesPublishedHolmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp.
213 F.3d 124 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 23, 2000
Consequently, they were not qualified to represent the proposed class. … They do not, however, expressly claim that the conclusion was "clearly erroneous" as required for reversal on appeal. Nor, in fact, are the District Court's conclusions clearly erroneous.
Cited 141 timesUnknown660 F.2d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 22, 1981
This inquiry requires us to determine if Congress clearly intended to withhold jury trials in FSIA actions, and, if so, whether § 1330(a) is the exclusive jurisdictional grant in this case. … Since there is no generally applicable jury trial right that attaches when the United States consents to suit, the accepted principles of sovereign immunity require that a jury trial right be clearly provided in the legislation
Cited 0 timesPublishedPellegrino Food Products Co. v. City of Warren
116 F. App'x 346 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 19, 2004
immunity grounds. … City of Philadelphia, 288 F.3d 57, 61 (3d Cir. 2002) (“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
Cited 1 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna