Case law

United States v. Johnson

129 F.2d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1942

In reply he stated his recollection “after talking it over with some of the backers and another man Jack Sothern who had established a different time, established a time in November, 1937 * * * that November 1937 was the … is an attempt on the part of the government to force from the witness who is not immune from testifying as to things which are on trial here before the court, but who has the same immunity as any one else from testifying

In Re Grand Jury Matter. Appeal of United States of America

673 F.2d 688 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 9, 1982

Once the wife's testimony is immunized, the Government bears the burden in any subsequent prosecution of establishing that the evidence it proposes to use against the husband is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent … Malfitano clearly reflected the common law conception of the marital privilege, limiting its applicability to adverse testimony that could be heard, and used, by the grand jury that indicted the non-witness spouse 6 See also

Agarwal v. City of Jersey City

388 F. App'x 199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 13, 2010

from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, the municipal court judge is absolutely immune from suit, and the individual Jersey City employees are entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, we need not consider the District Court’s decision that the individual Jersey City defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because, as discussed above, the allegations in the complaint do not establish the

Osha Data/cih, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor

220 F.3d 153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 26, 2000

The information obtained through the Data Collection Initiative included each establishment’s name and address, the average number of employees who worked at that establishment in 1995, total employee work hours for 1995, … The district courts clearly have de novo review over the ultimate agency decision to *166 withhold records. See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B).

Deutscher Tennis Bund v. Atp Tour, Inc.

610 F.3d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 25, 2010

It also aimed to make the progression of the Tour easier for fans to follow by clearly communicating each tournament’s tier and differentiating 7 between the different tiers. … Further, all qualifying players were also required to play in the year-end Tennis Masters Cup championship.

United States v. Cecil Richardson, A/K/A Syed Richardson Cecil Richardson

313 F.3d 121 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 13, 2002

Richardson does not dispute that his two adult convictions for drug possession qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA. … cannot be said that the finder of fact necessarily found that in 1994 a “violent felony” was committed by Richardson, nor can it be said that Richardson himself admitted on the record or that it was otherwise unequivocally established

Karl C. Schurr v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc New Jersey State Casino Control Commission James Hurley , Chairman of the New Jersey State Casino Control Commission

196 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 12, 1999

Both Stevenson and his direct superior, Robert Chambers, believed that each of the applicants was qualified for the open position. Stevenson viewed the two as equally qualified. … If a casino licensee fails to meet the established goal, the licensee is required to document its good faith efforts to hire a qualified female or minority candidate for the position.

Alvaro Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc. And Playskool Baby, Inc

934 F.2d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 5, 1991

Quiroga’s second argument is that our decision in No. 90-5284 is irrelevant to our decision in No. 90-5748 because “Hasbro cannot establish, on the record before the District Court, any evidence establishing bad faith and … “Bad faith is a factual determination reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Environmental Protection Agency

500 F.2d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 1974

The Commonwealth cannot, by denominating traffic control and vehicle registration as “governmental” activities, immunize them from federal regulation designed to reduce air pollution. … Thus, the results of the low-mileage test series are clearly more indicative of actual driving conditions than those of the durability test series.

Nelson v. Pilkington PLC

288 F.3d 83 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 2002

In Alexander , the Supreme Court held that finality was established only if the nonparties stood in contempt. … Later, the Court established a three-part test for determining whether an order qualifies for immediate review.

LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center Ass'n

503 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 2007

LeBoon argues that despite all this the LJCC is not sufficiently religious to qualify for Section 702 protection. … Looking at the LJCC through this lens, there is no doubt that it does not qualify under § 702(a).

Burns v. PA Department of Correction

544 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 2008

To be sure, those cases established that a physical seizure of funds from an inmate’s account is sufficient to constitute the impairment of a property interest, but they did not establish that such a seizure is necessary. … Burns focuses on Honoré’s sixth incident of property ownership, the right of security, which Lawrence Becker has defined as “immunity from expropriation.” Lawrence C.

Iman Sharif v. Nathan Picone

740 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2014

The police officers asserted a qualified immunity defense. To determine whether they were entitled to this defense, the court examined whether the officers had violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established rights. … Indeed, it is well-established that Rule 410 does not apply to the conviction itself, which is admissible subject to the limitations of the other Rules of Evidence. See Brewer v.

Gray v. Pagano

287 F. App'x 155 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 2008

Borough of Homestead, 381 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004) (A defendant may be shielded from liability for civil damages if his actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … As previously explained, the claim against Sheriff McGinn is now moot and 6 protected by qualified immunity.

United States v. 60.14 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Warren and McKean Counties, State of Pennsylvania, and Arthur W. Seibel

362 F.2d 660 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 24, 1966

This opinion evidence was excluded on the ground that the witness was not qualified. … The hearsay nature of Min-singer’s knowledge of the comparable sales clearly does not justify the exclusion of his testimony.

William Dahl v. Mary Johnston

598 F. App'x 818 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 31, 2015

The District Court found that the judges had judicial immunity, and that the State of Delaware was immune under the Eleventh Amendment. … To succeed on a claim under Title II of the ADA, Dahl must establish (1) that he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) who was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs

Geisinger Health Plan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

30 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 27, 1994

Establishing GHP as a separate entity avoids disrupting the governance of the other Geis-inger System entities to comply with this requirement. … In Geisinger I, we decided that GHP cannot qualify for tax exemption on its' own merits.

Zhen Hua Li v. Attorney General of the United States Immigration & Naturalization Service

400 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 10, 2005

Like Fatin , however, Ahmed , is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. … That is not a necessary inference from Li’s testimony, however, and a contrary inference is a clearly permissible one if that testimony is fully credited.

Crawford v. Washington County Children & Youth Services

353 F. App'x 726 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 24, 2009

CYS learned that K.C. had no formal education, had no immunizations, and was living in unsanitary conditions. CYS removed K.C. from his home. … A social worker’s decision or conduct constitutes a substantive due process violation only when it is “so clearly arbitrary” that it “can properly be said to shock the conscience.” Miller v.

Rogers v. Larson

563 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 23, 1977

The Supreme Court has, however, established three grounds upon which a local statute may be deemed pre-empted by federal law. … Clearly, citizen-workers would best be protected and assured high wages if no aliens were allowed to enter.