Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,730 results
1.79s
Davis Enterprises v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
877 F.2d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 27, 1989
It is curious indeed that the EPA’s concern about establishing a troublesome precedent ignores, as it does, a valued legal principle of several centuries standing. … The Court in Boron Oil referred to the doctrine of sovereign immunity in reaching its decision, but that issue is not before us here.
Cited 5 timesPublishedBlanche Road Corp. v. Bensalem Township
57 F.3d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 26, 1995
exceed the scope of qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the defense of qualified immunity is not available to defendants in the instant matter. 16 VII.
Cited 4 timesUnknown744 F.2d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 1984
executive immunity; and (3) if they are not so protected, then the damage award is error because the district court failed to find that plaintiff’s confinement was unjustified and it wrongly assessed liability from January … As the Hewitt Court stated, the Pennsylvania regulations which establish administrative segregation also establish “a protected liberty interest [in the inmates] in remaining in the general prison population.” Id.
Cited 42 timesPublishedPennsylvania Medical Society v. Snider
29 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 20, 1994
Sec. 1396 et seq., established the Medicaid program which is separate from the Medicare program. … Whatever method the State selects must apply to all qualified Medicare beneficiaries.
Cited 47 timesPublished401 F.3d 123 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2005
The length of the delay is a question of fact which is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Churma v. United States Steel Corp., 514 F.2d 589, 593 (3d Cir.1975). … The District Court's finding as to when Santana was aware of Bobrick's conduct is not clearly erroneous. As early as March, 1989, Santana was aware of Bobrick's "fire scare" campaign.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States v. Milan Yurasovich
580 F.2d 1212 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 26, 1978
The United States Attorney stated that in examining Yurasovich he would attempt to “develop . . facts which go to an integral criminal scheme” to steal mail. 1 Apparently the goal of the United States Attorney was to establish … United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), made in connection with Rule 11, that a guilty plea waives Fifth Amendment rights refer clearly to the right against self-incrimination with respect
Cited 55 timesPublishedLarry V. Muko, Inc. v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Building & Construction Trades Council
609 F.2d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 20, 1979
Clearly the directed verdict cannot be affirmed on the ground upon which the district court acted. … But the methods the union chose are not immune from antitrust sanctions simply because the goal is legal.
Cited 8 timesPublishedAlcaraz v. Attorney General of the United States
312 F. App'x 447 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2008
However, the statute is clearly written in the disjunctive, not in the conjunctive. … Since Alcaraz’s May 2003 offense is a conviction for purposes of § 1229b(a)(2), he has never established the 7-year period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States required for cancellation
Cited 0 timesPublishedAlcaraz v. Attorney General of the United States
312 F. App'x 447 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2008
However, the statute is clearly written in the disjunctive, not in the conjunctive. … Since Alcaraz’s May 2003 offense is a conviction for purposes of § 1229b(a)(2), he has never established the 7-year period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States required for cancellation
Cited 0 timesPublishedMichael Reynolds v. Municipality of Norristown
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 16, 2017
rights; and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. … That review includes “whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Ziccardi v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedN.J. Transit Policemen's Benevolent Association Local 304 v. New Jersey Transit Corporation
806 F.2d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 27, 1987
This immunity from ICA fare regulation, and therefore ICA jurisdiction, represents a benefit or privilege granted by Congress to NJT. … Transit continues to qualify for the overtime exemption.
Cited 15 timesPublished950 F.2d 244 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 6, 1992
We think that it is impossible as a matter of Texas law for Dedmon to establish that Stewart-Warner’s furnace is merely a component part of an improvement for the reason that it is part of a “system.” … The statute effectively immunizes protected persons from suit brought more than ten years from the stated date. 2 .
Cited 20 timesPublishedUnited States v. Darron Henderson
80 F.4th 207 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2023
These various felony levels carry different penalties.3 The subsections of § 3701(a)(1) are not separate means of satisfying a specific element, but rather “clearly la[y] out alternative elements” for separate robbery … Bd. of Rev., 114 A.3d 385, 394 (Pa. 2015) (“It is well-established that the common and approved meaning of a word may be ascertained from an examination of its dictionary definition.”).
Cited 8 timesPublished515 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 14, 2008
substantial right or which clearly show manifest injustice. … Delaware case law establishes that the issue of whether the alleged error in the context of this particular case was “apparent on the face of the record” and “so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize
Cited 68 timesPublishedHudson United Bank v. Chase Manhattan Bank of Connecticut, N.A.
43 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 29, 1994
Second, whether the claims procedures established in FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. … The purpose was not to immunize certain claims from review.
Cited 49 timesPublished339 F. App'x 196 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 6, 2009
Beck carefully analyzed the discrepancies contained in the loan applications and clearly identified the troublesome nature of the documents. … As an underwriter, Wiseman was charged with protecting the interests of the bank and establishing the first line of defense against fraud.
Cited 1 timesPublishedRamada Inns, Inc. v. Rosemount Memorial Park Association
598 F.2d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 16, 1979
The Supreme Court, however, clearly applied the latter test in Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. … Jordan, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 1139 , 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) 5 Section 8A:4-2 provides in relevant part: There shall be established, by each and every cemetery operating within this State under certificate of authority issued
Cited 8 timesPublishedNatl RR Passenger v. PA Pub Util Comm
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 27, 2003
As part of the RPSA, Congress created Amtrak and provided private railroads the opportunity to transfer their passenger-service obligations to Amtrak, which Congress had established for that purpose. Id. at 454-55. … Consent Decree because none of the parties to the underlying PUC proceedings (the entities who were assessed a portion of the costs) were parties to the Consent Decree proceedings.15 15 The Commonwealth Court clearly
Cited 0 timesPublished654 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 27, 1981
Moreover, its finding (which is one of mixed law and fact) that the work being done by Barron was extra hazardous is not clearly erroneous. … We agree. 10 Finally, we also hold that the district court's finding that the employee was not contributorily negligent is not clearly erroneous. Id. at 1085 .
Cited 0 timesPublished959 F.3d 578 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 20, 2020
Second, we consider what showing is required to establish that an inmate’s use of the grievance process was thwarted by misrepresentation. … The Showing Required to Establish Thwarting of the Grievance Process Having established that a misleading instruction may qualify as a “misrepresentation” under Ross, we now consider
Cited 88 timesPublished
Ask Donna