Case law

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

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.

United States v. Thomas K. Bills, M.D.

822 F.2d 373 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 25, 1987

Congress did not establish the program to subsidize medical edúcation generally; neither did it enact the damage provisions to produce revenues. … Qualified research projects unequivocally earn credit for time so spent.

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.

Helms v. Hewitt

655 F.2d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1981

Thus, on remand, if the defendants do not establish official immunity as discussed in Part IV infra, the district court should enter summary judgment for Helms on the issue whether he was denied due process in being confined … We therefore leave the issue of official immunity to the district court on remand.

National Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. United States

169 F.2d 943 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 1948

All three witnesses showed a sound qualifying background of study and experience in their professions. This was not questioned. These witnesses had inspected the Pan Massachusetts, a 'Virginia type vessel. … The consent necessary to waive the traditional immunity must be express, and it must be strictly construed.” See also United States v.

Katherine L. Taylor v. Phoenixville School District

174 F.3d 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 5, 1999

Rieger, agreed that during Taylor’s hospitalization, she “clearly had paranoid delusions” and was hyperactive and psychotic. … While the District Court agreed that bipolar disorder clearly qualifies as a “mental impairment,” the District Court nonetheless concluded that Taylor’s impairment did not substantially limit one of her major life activities

Pennsylvania State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Northampton County Board of Elections

97 F.4th 120 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 27, 2024

That is established both by a receipt stamp placed on the envelope by the county board and separately through scanning of the unique barcode on the envelope. … Plaintiffs have established there is a personal right in § 10101, and the presumption has not been rebutted.

Kobe Pinkney v. City of Meadville

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 23, 2022

Frum moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing he is entitled to qualified immunity. … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, “we ask (1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable

Scott Ferris v. Milton S. Hershey Medical Cent

701 F. App'x 91 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 12, 2017

The District Court, in an alternative holding, also addressed the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which was raised by both the hospital physicians and the social worker. Following our decision in Miller v. … immunity question on appeal.

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.

United States v. Smith

767 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 2014

The error is of no moment, however, because the text of the indictment clearly sets forth, and the parties clearly understood, brandishing to be the charged conduct. 4 of 84 months’ imprisonment … We further held that the distance of over thirty feet was enough for the action to qualify as abduction under the Guidelines. Id. at 291.

Pittsburgh Press Club v. United States

536 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 26, 1976

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: The principal issue presented by this suit for an income tax refund is whether the Pittsburgh Press Club (PPC) qualifies as an exempt organization under I.R.C. § 501(c)(7), 26 U.S.C. § 501 … The rationale for this is clearly set out in Rev.Proc. 64-36, § 3.03-04 (1964-2 Cum. Bull. 963). 7 .

Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. Rose

671 F.2d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 26, 1982

The retrospective policy establishes minimum and maximum premiums to be paid, and it states the standard premium that would be charged under an equivalent standard policy. … Admiral does not appear to argue that the district court’s finding that it had notice of the misunderstanding is clearly erroneous.

Gregory Bohus v. Restaurant.Com Inc

784 F.3d 918 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2015

The TCCWNA prohibits giving notice to a consumer or offering or entering into any written consumer contract that violates any clearly established consumer right or seller responsibility. Id. § 56:12-15. … An opinion establishes a “new” rule “‘either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, … or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.’” Coons v.

David Munchinski v. Harry Wilson

694 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 11, 2012

Judge Franks granted Bowen use immunity for his testimony. … The court declined to consider whether Munchinski had shown cause and prejudice, because “he so clearly qualifies for the second exception to the procedural default rule—i.e., failing to allow his claims

National Labor Relations Board v. Stackpole Carbon Co.

105 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 2, 1939

It follows therefore that the contract of January 10, 1937, was not made by the respondent with an independent organization qualified to represent employees. … The record shows clearly that every effort was made by the respondent to strengthen the Association while destroying the opposition union.

Mollie Krieger v. Ownership Corporation, a Corporation of New Jersey

270 F.2d 265 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 1959

Clearly in point is Nilsson v. Abruzzo, 1931, 107 N.J.L. 327 , 153 A. 486 . There a patron of a barber shop operated by the tenant was injured by reason of repairs negligently made by the landlords. … In holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s action on grounds not pertinent here the Court said: “In modern times the [traditional] immunities have rightly, though gradually, been giving way to the

Harvard Secured Creditors Liquidation Trust v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Harvard Industries, Inc.)

568 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 17, 2009

This clearly suggests an ambiguity in the language of the statute. … ERISA' sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established pension and health plans in private industry.

North Penn Gas Company v. Corning Natural Gas Corporation

897 F.2d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 3, 1990

As such, the district court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Stranahan Gear Co. v. N L Industries, 800 F.2d 53, 56 (3d Cir.1986). … Burger King clearly indicates when jurisdiction is proper.