Case law

Vornado, Inc. v. Trustees of the Retail Store Employees' Union Local 1262

829 F.2d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 1987

The fund had been qualified under ERISA; consequently, when Vornado ceased making payments it became subject to withdrawal liability. See 29 U.S.C. § 1381 . … Although the sparse legislative history of § 1414 offers no help, the amendments as a whole clearly were meant to facilitate effective plan management and protect the interests of beneficiaries and participants.

United States v. Joseph White

748 F.3d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 14, 2014

They are also distinguishable, as they did not involve a search of a home as an incident to an arrest that clearly took place at a distance outside the home. See United States v. … Klem, 499 F.3d 199, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2007), we observed that portions of Sharrar relating to qualified immunity had been abrogated by later precedents.

Pascack Valley Hospital, Inc. v. Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan Pascack Valley Hospital, Inc.

388 F.3d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 1, 2004

The complaint does not expressly refer to ERISA and the rights or immunities created under ERISA are not elements, let alone essential elements, of the plaintiffs claims. … As such, Pridmore’s certification cannot establish a routine practice relevant to this appeal, let alone satisfy the Plan’s burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.

Anthony Catanzaro v. Legrome Davis

686 F. App'x 91 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 13, 2017

; and that the claims against the clerk’s office personnel were barred by quasi-judicial immunity. … Private attorneys — like the attorney defendants here — generally do not qualify as state actors. See Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 184 F.3d 268, 277 (3d Cir. 1999).

Rolan v. Coleman

680 F.3d 311 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 2012

In doing so, we determine whether the state court’s determinations, (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined … However, the record clearly indicates that the prosecutor did not comment on Rolan’s post-arrest silence, but rather on the substance and limited nature of what he did say.

United States v. Richard Martin

867 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2017

Second, Martin qualified as a career offender under the Guidelines, whereas Freeman did not address the career offender issue at all. … Because this provision clearly distinguishes between the “applicable guideline range” and the “agreed sentence,” it “confirms that a defendant’s applicable range is distinct from the range agreed to in a plea agreement.”

Kappel v. United States

437 F.2d 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 1, 1971

This in turn depends primarily on whether they had a “legal obligation” to repay the amounts improperly received from the pension trusts so as to qualify for the deduction provided by § 1341 of the Code. 2 Although the taxpayers … The taxpayers recognize that the third finding is particularly damaging to their case and argue that it is clearly erroneous within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ. P. 52(a).

Thomas v. Carroll

581 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2009

established federal law. … Whether the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision was an “unreasonable application of’ clearly established federal law is a closer issue.

23 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1206, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,219 Smithers, Harry J. v. Bailar, Benjamin F., Postmaster General, United States Postal Service and United States Postal Service

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

A. 12 The district court first determined that appellant had established a prima facie case of age discrimination: 13 He has shown that (1) he belonged to the protected class, (2) that he applied and was qualified for the … 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.

Donald Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dept. Sean McCormack Asst. D.A. Denis Thomason, Donald Urrutia

91 F.3d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 1996

Here, however,' between the magistrate judge and the district judge, the frivolousness determination consumed nearly all of the 120 day period established by Rule 15(c) for an amendment to relate back. … And if he seeks damages, the district court must consider the Imbler prosecutorial immunity issue. *463 VI.

William White v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 16, 2026

July 5, 2024) (non- precedential) (ruling, in related case, that White’s PTSD did not qualify as a “physical injury” under § 1997e(e)). … We will therefore affirm the judgment, although, since the bar implicates the government’s sovereign immunity, we will modify the judgment to dismiss the claim. See Blanciak v.

Constitution Party of Pennsylv v. Carol Aichele

757 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 9, 2014

Parties qualified as minor parties leading up to the 2008 election. They became, instead, political bodies. … Redressability here follows the rest of the standing analysis primarily because, by establishing causation, the Aspiring Parties have also established redressa-bility. See Toll Bros.

United States v. Hendricks

395 F.3d 173 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2005

Second, the recorded conversations do not qualify as "testimonial" under any of the three definitions mentioned by the Court. … [It] clearly does not fall within the core category of ex parte testimonial statements that the court was concerned with in Crawford." ). Cf. United States v.

Conneen v. MBNA Amer Bank NA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 27, 2003

In order to establish that a plaintiff is “qualified” under the ADA, the employee must show that he/she “satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job- related requirements of the employment position … Accordingly, the court held that Time Warner was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Skerski was not “an otherwise qualified individual” under the ADA and therefore could not establish a prima facie case for disability

James v. York County Police Department

160 F. App'x 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 8, 2005

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar 11 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The inquiry into the applicability of qualified immunity is twofold: (1) whether the plaintiff alleged the deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was established at the time of the alleged deprivation

Burt N. Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins

45 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 14, 1995

Hicks, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). 3 As applied to ADEA cases, the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing that (1) he is over 40, (2) he is qualified for the position in question, (3) he … As we have said in a similar context, “[t]hus, [plaintiffs] satisfactory performance of duties over a long period of time leading to a promotion clearly established his qualifications for the job.”

John Olson v. General Electric Astrospace AKA Martin-Marrietta Astrospace

101 F.3d 947 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 18, 1996

To do so he had to establish that (1) he belongs to a protected category; (2) he applied for and was qualified-.for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and … However, we believe that Olson clearly demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to the third basis of his ADA claim.

Robinson v. Matthews International Corp.

368 F. App'x 301 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 2010

In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination for failure to promote, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is age forty or older; (2) he applied for and is qualified for the job; (3) despite his qualifications … Matthews has clearly laid out that an “adequate” review equates with “below standard” performance.

Claude Lacombe v. Warden James T Vaughn Correct

95 F.4th 127 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 2024

Similarly, a decision involves “an unreasonable application of” clearly established law when it “correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular . . . case.” … We qualify our holding with an important caveat.

Eleazar Morel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

90 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 26, 1996

The judgment of conviction in Morel’s criminal case clearly shows that he was convicted only of drug possession, see App. at 37, and the government does not argue otherwise. … Nothing in the statute suggests that these requirements qualify or limit one another in a way that would require that all seven years of “lawful domicile” have been in a “permanent resident” status.