Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,730 results
1.90s
United States v. Anthony D'Ambrosio
105 F.4th 533 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 26, 2024
For that reason, we “do not apply the ‘jurisdictional’ label casually” and only treat a provision as jurisdictional if Congress “clearly states” as much. Culp, 75 F.4th at 200–01 (citations omitted). … court must consider constitute an exclusive list of factors, of which legality is not included; 9 and (2) permitting a challenge based on legality would undermine the overall “scheme of appellate and collateral review” established
Cited 5 timesPublishedBethlehem Steel Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
651 F.2d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 1981
Third, the technology did not in fact qualify as a “new means” entitled to the five year extension under section 113(d)(4). … WHETHER THE CANOPY HOOD SYSTEM QUALIFIES AS A NEW MEANS The EPA’s third and fourth grounds for its disapproval relate to its conclusion that Bethlehem’s canopy hood system did not qualify as a “new means” of emission limitation
Cited 6 timesPublished402 F.2d 878 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 2, 1968
After examining the evidence we are unanimous in finding it inadequate to establish any negligence by the individual defendants. 9 The judgment of the district court will be affirmed. 10 KALODNER, Circuit Judge, concurs in … Elbert, 348 U.S. 48, 54 , 75 S.Ct. 151 , 99 L.Ed. 59 (1954), Frankfurter, J., concurring 11 BIGGS, Circuit Judge (dissenting in part and concurring in part). 12 As a Senior Circuit Judge, 28 U.S.C. § 371 (b), I was not qualified
Cited 28 timesPublishedSinger Management Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram
650 F.3d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 2010
My “different” qualifying facts are clearly found in the record of this case. Moreover, my facts support a finding of “prevailing party.” … The District Court issued a TRO — clearly premised on the merits of the claims at issue — compelling the State to permit Live Gold to do just that.
Cited 1 timesPublished253 F.2d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 25, 1958
was the effective date of the Immigration Act of 1924 and had Anselmo entered prior to that date he would have attained a non-deportable status under the provisions of Section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917, 4 which established … Clearly dispositive are the well-settled principles, earlier cited, that “a question of fact or of law distinctly put in issue and directly determined * * * cannot afterwards be disputed between the same parties”, and where
Cited 18 timesPublished825 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 1987
Murray particularly instructive: Proof of a willingness to injure is not necessary in establishing gross and wanton negligence. … Contrary to Klepper’s assertion, nothing in this earlier language clearly refutes the judge's ruling that wantonness is not an aspect of willful conduct according to Kansas law. 10 .
Cited 42 timesPublishedUnited States v. Gregory Brown
765 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 2014
He also determined that the 2005 terroristic threats conviction did not qualify as a predicate offense because the documents supporting that conviction did not definitively establish under which subsection of the statute … [that] clearly involves violence.” Id. at 222-23.
Cited 58 timesPublished533 F.3d 218 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 18, 2008
Even assuming that Ferber may, in limited circumstances and without Supreme Court guidance, be applied to other categories of speech, 18 U.S.C. § 48 does not qualify for such treatment. … The Supreme *230 Court cannot speak more clearly than it has on this issue: “The prospect of crime ... by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech.” Id. at 245 , 122 S.Ct. 1389 .
Cited 23 timesPublishedO'Connor v. City of Philadelphia
233 F. App'x 161 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 11, 2007
“A court ruling on a qualified immunity issue must make a threshold inquiry as to whether ‘[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.
Cited 30 timesUnpublishedDemetrio Reynoso-Lopez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States of America
369 F.3d 275 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 25, 2004
We must establish whether the BIA’s factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence. See Senathirajah v. INS, 157 F.8d 210, 216 (3d Cir.1998). … hearing and there is no indication in the record that she does not continue to qualify”).
Cited 70 timesPublished865 F.2d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 13, 1989
In responding to that motion, the defendants presented no affidavits containing and we have found in the summary judgment record no materials suggesting that there is a factual basis for the affirmative defense of qualified … official immunity.
Cited 33 timesPublishedGikas v. Washington School District
328 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 16, 2003
In sum, Gikas has not established a federal constitutional violation, hence we are constrained to affirm the judgment of the District Court. … They must be, in some sense, "qualified.").
Cited 2 timesPublishedAnderson v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
297 F.3d 242 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 2002
A plaintiff may establish an age discrimination claim using direct or indirect evidence. … In any case, we have stated that "it is clearly proper to instruct the jury that it may consider whether the factual predicates necessary to establish the prima facie case have been shown." Watson v.
Cited 27 timesPublishedAnderson v. Consolidated Rail Corporation Conrail
297 F.3d 242 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 2002
A plaintiff may establish an age discrimination claim using direct or indirect evidence. … In any case, we have stated that "it is clearly proper to instruct the jury that it may consider whether the factual predicates necessary to establish the prima facie case have been shown." Watson v.
Cited 17 timesPublished23 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 23, 1994
The Court of Federal Claims is established under Article I not Article III. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 171 (a) (Supp. … Sec. 171 ("Such court is hereby declared to be a court established under Article III of Constitution of the United States").
Cited 3 timesPublishedErnst v. Child & Youth Services of Chester County
108 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 12, 1997
Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding that pre- adjudicatory investigative activities by child welfare workers are entitled only to qualified immunity); Achterhof v. … Ernst does not argue on appeal that this finding was clearly erroneous.
Cited 5 timesUnknown58 F.3d 896 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 1995
same conclusion, recognizing that an employer can qualify the provision of "lifetime" benefits by reserving the right to terminate the plan under which those benefits are provided. … The retirees contend that the record clearly establishes that many of the retirees, including the early retirees or "VRIFs", relied to their detriment on the company's misrepresentations because many employees accelerated
Cited 144 timesPublishedBudhun v. Reading Hospital & Medical Center
765 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 27, 2014
Her “fitness-for-duty” certification clearly stated that she could return to work with “no restrictions.” … Thus, to succeed on her claim, it is her burden to establish that “(1) she invoked her right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) she suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) the adverse action was causally related to her
Cited 240 timesPublishedHugo Aguilar v. Attorney General United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 2024
But qualifying for that type of relief turned out to be an uphill battle given his state court conviction. … Pretrial detention clearly constitutes “confinement.” However, Congress has no less clearly limited the circumstances in which such confinement should bar cancellation of removal.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna