Case law

Diesbourg v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.

176 F.2d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 13, 1949

The matter of who may qualify as an expert is pretty much within the discretion of a Trial Judge. … qualifies him as a witness in a federal court. 10 5.

Wilmore v. City of Wilmington

699 F.2d 667 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 1983

The district court’s decision rests on a fatal error in reasoning and a clearly erroneous factual finding. … Therefore, the district court’s finding on this point is clearly erroneous.

Christopher Zimmer, Sr. v. New Jersey Division of Chid Pr

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 8, 2018

State actors are protected by qualified immunity if “the law did not put the officer on notice that [her] conduct would be clearly unlawful.” Montanez v. Thompson, 603 F.3d 243, 251 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Bayer v. … For that reason, she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Victor Sasay v. Attorney General United States

13 F.4th 291 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 10, 2021

Sasay’s plea agreement readily establishes that his conviction has as an element the commission of bank fraud, in violation of § 18 U.S.C. § 1344. … Because bank fraud categorically qualifies as a 7 A.R. at 678. 8 Appx. at 6 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 9 Id.

United States v. Levy

577 F.2d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 3, 1978

Since the district court found only two of the three allegations had been established by the prosecution, we review only those items. … If the government wished to establish that the defendant had transmitted a check by mail, a proper and specific question could easily have been framed.

Threadgill v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

928 F.2d 1366 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 1991

The district court stated that, based on the evidence, the jury was “free to conclude that plaintiffs had failed to establish product nexus.” … Thus, while the jury verdict may have rested on plaintiffs’ failure to prove causation, there is no way to establish this for certain.

Henry A. Vigliano v. Honorable John G. Thevos, Hon. John Doe (Fictitious) and Hon. John F. Crane, Defendants-Respondents

390 F.2d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 1968

We are thus not confronted with a bold rejection by a state court of a clearly binding United States Supreme Court decision. … We also pass any question concerning the immunity of the state judges from suits under the Civil Rights Act. Compare Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967).

McKnight v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

583 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 1978

Pape “insofar as it holds that local governments are wholly immune from suit under § 1983.” Monnell v. … Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 , 91 S.Ct. 507 , 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971), was qualified in Paul v.

South Allegheny Pittsburgh v. City of Pittsburgh

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 27, 2020

Mariani’s Qualified Immunity Defense Mariani, the only defendant SAPRE sued in an individual capacity, contends that the claims against him should be dismissed, as he is protected by qualified immunity. … If there is no Supreme Court case on point, “it may be possible that a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ in the Court[s] of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Papaiya v. City of Union City

238 F. App'x 848 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 2007

Furthermore, they contend that the City officials should have been shielded from this litigation by qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Jennifer Clemens v. Execupharm Inc

48 F.4th 146 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 2022

This set of facts clearly presents a more imminent injury than the ones we deemed to establish only a hypothetical injury in Reilly. … Here, Clemens has alleged facts that establish traceability, at least at the pleading stage.

Brody v. Spang

957 F.2d 1108 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 18, 1992

Bd. of School Directors, 776 F.2d 431 , 436 (3d Cir.1985), by contrast, we held that another public school's athletic field did not qualify as a public forum. … In the remedial phase, however, the Fitzgerald group's interests have clearly diverged from those of school officials.

Warren Hilarion Eusta Joseph v. Attorney General of the United States

465 F.3d 123 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 2, 2006

He argues only that 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(3) is not an aggravated felony, a contention that he clearly raised before the BIA and thus exhausted. … Section 922(a)(3) clearly falls under the broad umbrella of weapons crimes covered by § 1227(a)(2)(C), which include “possessing” and “carrying” and petitioner does not challenge this.

Armstrong v. Dwyer

155 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 1998

In the present matter, the interrogatories submitted to the jury clearly satisfy this standard. … As the preceding discussion demonstrates, Congress has clearly created a statutory scheme that is highly protective of information related to PRO proceedings. 56 d.

Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation

863 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 9, 1989

These definitions are clearly not limited to accrued benefit plans. See 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1002 (1), (2), (23). … This 70/80 plan clearly satisfies Sec. 1003(a).

Bank One, Texas, N.A. And Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Mbank Houston, N.A., Plaintiffs-Third Party v. Suzan E. Taylor D/B/A Exploration Services, Defendant-Third Party v. Worth Operating, Inc., Third Party

970 F.2d 16 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 18, 1992

First, the evidence clearly shows that MBank was not subject to, nor had reasonable grounds to anticipate, rival claims to the account fund. … The detailed enumeration of events that would "render" the note "payable on demand," or which would put Reid in "default," shows the qualified and relative nature of any "demand" provision. 52 As applied to the facts of this

Arnold v. Bl Intermediate Unit 17

843 F.2d 122 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 25, 1988

A refusal to grant the writ may be reversed if it is based on clearly erroneous factual findings or an incorrect legal standard. Lal v. Brooks, 98 Pa.Comm. 380, 511 A.2d 277, 279 (1986); Fallini v. … Further, it is well established that Congress intended to abrogate state immunity from suit in applying the Act's provision to state or local entities in their role as employers. Usery v.

Fikiri Lusingo v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States

420 F.3d 193 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 19, 2005

Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”), the Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to an alien who qualifies as a “refugee.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1). … An alien qualifies as a “refugee” by establishing either past perseeution or a well-founded fear of future persecution because of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion

United States v. Eric Scott

14 F.4th 190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2021

This is not such an exceptional case. 6 precedent must be combined with some other factor – such as a concession by the government26 or a clearly erroneous application of statutory law27 … – to establish plain error.

Jennifer Komlo v. United States

657 F. App'x 85 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 12, 2016

The Tax Court found she was not liable for any of the delinquent taxes from 1993, 1994, 1995, or 1997 because she qualified as an innocent spouse under 26 U.S.C. § 6015(c). A23-24. … In so doing, she contends that if the levy sought to be established was based on an invalid assessment, then the IRS’s disclosure in pursuit of establishing that levy was wrongful.