Case law

United States v. David Payo

135 F.4th 99 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

And it also found that the Government’s Shepard documents had not established whether Payo’s 2008 conviction was under subsection (i) or (ii). … But we need not address whether a docket sheet can ever be a Shepard docu- ment because this one clearly is not.

Grasso v. Crowhurst

154 F.2d 208 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 26, 1946

The lower Court while clearly holding that the request for leave of absence is an application for reinstatement is of the opinion that because it does not anticipate immediate work or at least work within the forty day period … during his period of training and service in the land or naval forces, shall be so restored without loss of seniority, shall be entitled to participate in insurance or other beneiits offered by the employer pursuant to established

Xiurong Liu v. Attorney General of the United States

343 F. App'x 788 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 1, 2009

In dismissing her appeal, the BIA concluded that Liu was unable to demonstrate on appeal that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was clearly erroneous. … It is well-recognized that an alien who is unable to establish refugee status for the purpose of asylum will be unable to establish the right to withholding of removal.

Field v. Volkswagenwerk AG

626 F.2d 293 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 1980

As such, she was the only one qualified to assert a claim on behalf of the estate at that time. … Act of March 3, 1875, § 1, 18 Stat. 470 . . 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2) (1976), as amended by Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, Pub.L. No. 94-583, § 3 , 90 Stat. 2891 . .

In the Matter of I. J. Knight Realty Corp., Bankrupt. Reading Company

370 F.2d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 6, 1967

Thus, taxes incurred during a receivership which is established, not to wind up the business, but to foster it, have been given priority as an expense of administration. … To refuse to recognize claims resulting from the operation of the business is to create a substantial immunity from liability, ironically enough, at a time when it is being generally recognized that tort immunity has little

United States v. Marva Headley, A/K/A "Brenda"

923 F.2d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 1991

Clearly it falls outside the prevailing professional norms. … conduct is not included in establishing the defendant's offense level.”

United States v. Warren

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 2003

[and] any effort . . . to compel [that testimony] . . . at the sentencing hearing clearly would contravene the Fifth Amendment.” Id. at 326 (quotation omitted). … In order to qualify for the sentencing benefits of Amendment claim as both Frierson and the present case do.

Carmen Contreras Aybar v. Secretary United States Depart

916 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2019

Certain U-Visa benefits also extend to qualifying family members. … Put another way, “[i]f Congress has directly and clearly spoken to the question at issue, our Chevron analysis is complete at step one, and Congress’s unambiguous intent controls.” Shalom Pentecostal Church v.

Campbell v. Burris

515 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

prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,017 Linda Dedmon, Etc. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., Third-Party and v. Donald Hampton, Third-Party

950 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 .

Daniel K. Warren, Jr. v. Kenneth D. Kyler, the District Attorney of the County of Lehigh, the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania

422 F.3d 132 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 7, 2005

First, federal habeas relief is warranted if the state conviction was “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law.” … In either case we must first identify the applicable “clearly established Federal law.”

Jane Jones v. Pi Kappa Alpha Intl Fraternity

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 1, 2019

The officers also argue in their individual capacities that they are entitled to qualified immunity, either because Jones has failed to sufficiently allege a state-created danger or because it was no longer clearly established … The officers next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was no longer clearly established following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v.

Natl 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

United States v. Muhammad Askari

159 F.3d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 5, 1998

The second issue seems even more clearly to be an issue for the district court rather than the en banc court of appeals. … (permitting the imposition of a sentence outside the range established by the Guidelines "if the court finds 'that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into

Emmco Insurance Company v. Wallenius Caribbean Line, S.A., Defendant-Third Party v. Gulfstream Shipping Corporation, Third Party

492 F.2d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 12, 1974

Plaintiff-appellant asserts that the district court’s decision was “clearly erroneous.” … This Court phrased a workable “clearly erroneous” formula in Chaney v.

Hudson 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.

Hill v. Director , Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

562 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 9, 2009

Clearly Mr. Hill was in poor condition. He was severely malnourished; an albumin of less than 2.0 is associated with immune compromise and he was thus likely to have difficulty warding off infection. … Hill has established her entitlement to survivor’s benefits as a matter of law, and there is nothing left to do but award the benefits she is clearly entitled to.

Jomear Martin v. City of Newark

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 28, 2018

The District Court held that Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was neither objectively unreasonable nor against clearly established law. … Qualified immunity operates to protect a public official from civil liability — even litigation — so long as he did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Kathleen Hackett, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. General Host Corporation

455 F.2d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 1972

But even in this field, the “death knell” rationale, based upon the assumption that no competent lawyer would undertake a complicated case to recover a small amount of money, must be qualified by several considerations. … See also 28 U.S.C. § 2678 (1971) providing for reasonable attorneys’ fees in suits involving torts committed by the Federal Government where its immunity has been waived. .

Smithers v. Bailar

629 F.2d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 1980

The district court first determined that appellant had established a prima facie case of age discrimination: He has shown that (1) he belonged to the protected class, (2) that he applied and was qualified for the position … Nevertheless, the “general concern” of the Board, as found by the court, was that “Barry was more articulate and could present himself and his position more clearly than could Smithers.” Smithers at 15.