Case law

National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Glen Thomas, Chairman, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Robert K. Bloom, Vice Chairman, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Aaron Wilson, Jr., Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Terrence J. Fitzpatrick, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

342 F.3d 242 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 27, 2003

As part of the RPSA, Congress created Amtrak and provided private railroads the opportunity to transfer their passenger-service obligations to Amtrak, which Congress had established for that purpose. … Although we agree that the PUC's analysis is lacking, we will decide the issue on the merits. 15 The Commonwealth Court clearly overlooked the fact that SEPTA was a party to both the PUC proceedings and the Consent Decree

Bresko v. John

87 F. App'x 800 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 2004

On remand, the District Court determined that Bresko’s claims against Detective John did not allege a Fourth Amendment violation and, therefore, that John was entitled to qualified immunity. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), “[i]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Rohrer v. Conemaugh & Black Lick Railroad Company

359 F.2d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 18, 1966

Initially, only these two subparagraphs were drafted, and they conferred those rights on all qualified bargaining agents. … employees are those employees described in 152, Eleventh (c), which provision refers to 153, First (h), for a formal definition 10 Congress borrowed the language 'national in scope' from 153 of the Act, which deals with the establishment

Bernitsky v. United States

620 F.2d 948 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 1980

The boundaries of the sovereign immunity waived by the Federal Tort Claims Act are delineated by the statutory provision excepting certain claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (1976). … Since the inspector concededly had the statutory authority to issue the Withdrawal Order and accepting, as we must for this purpose, the causation alleged, the issue thus clearly emerges: Does the issuance of that Order,

Albert Schock v. James Baker

663 F. App'x 248 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 27, 2016

In addition, the defendants argued that the Schocks had failed to establish municipal liability for Wilmington and the City Council, and that the government-official defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, the answering brief opposed the defendants’ municipal-liability and qualified- immunity arguments.

Cassandra DeMolick v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 2023

Analysis An FTCA plaintiff must satisfy six elements to simultaneously trigger the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, create subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, and establish the Government’s tort … Plaintiffs do not otherwise argue that the Court’s finding of obviousness was clearly erroneous, and so we adopt it here.

Johnson v. Umwa Health & Retirement Funds

125 F. App'x 400 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2005

To qualify for disability benefits under the UMWA Plan, an applicant must therefore establish that: (1) he suffered a mine accident that occurred while working in a classified job for a signatory employee; (2) he became totally … Without more, Johnson cannot rely on this case to support a proposition that contradicts established case law in this Circuit.

Archibald Kreiger and Claire R. Kreiger v. United States

539 F.2d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 1976

The distinction was clearly expressed in Public Service Co. v. … This question need not detain us since there is no suggestion in the leading cases that this “modem view” extends to suits against the government, which involve the additional consideration of waiver of sovereign immunity

Norman's on the Waterfront, Inc. v. Wheatley

444 F.2d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 17, 1971

As noted earlier, they allow the wholesaler to enter into contracts with retailers establishing a minimum resale price for branded liquor, and such contracts bind even retailers who do not sign them. … Then, if it has such power and proceeds to pass a fair trade act, the McGuire Act would clearly remove the barrier against its effectiveness.

Henry J. Bagrowski v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., and Third Party v. City of Milwaukee, Third Party

440 F.2d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 10, 1971

was engaging is maritime in its nature; his employment was a maritime contract; the injuries which he received were likewise maritime ; and the rights and liabilities of the parties in connection therewith were matters clearly … V The defendant-appellee City of Milwaukee, for the first time in this proceeding, on brief and in oral argument urges affirmance of the dismissal of the third-party complaint on the ground of its sovereign immunity.

Tony Fisher v. Jordan Hollingsworth

115 F.4th 197 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2024

Abbasi 25 established a restrictive test for extending Bivens. The Ziglar 17 Bivens v. … Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 431 (2007) (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (chastising the majority for going further than necessary, when deciding the case solely on the qualified immunity issue before the

Singer v. A. Hollander & Son, Inc.

202 F.2d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 27, 1953

What he said was something the plaintiff obviously does not care to stress here, that is, that although the decision made by New Jersey’s highest court on New Jersey law is not a decision governing either liability or immunity … The district judge was clearly correct in this.

Town Court Nursing Center, Inc. v. Beal

586 F.2d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 1978

In Part A, Medicare provides for hospital insurance benefits for qualified beneficiaries. … The Secretary of HEW is responsible for determining whether a facility qualifies as a skilled nursing facility.

Shahin v. State of Delaware Department of Finance

619 F. App'x 91 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 27, 2015

is “dishonest” or “corrupt[].” 4 among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position at issue,” Mlynczak v. … In light of the fact that only Leveridge possessed experience working at a help desk, Shahin cannot show that she was clearly better qualified for the position. See Stanziale v.

Tyree Lawson v. Ryan McNamara

438 F. App'x 113 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 21, 2011

We also agree with the District Court’s conclusion that Kee and McNamara are entitled to qualified immunity because the facts do not establish a violation of Lawson’s constitutional rights. See Pearson v. … Ct. 808, 815-18 (2009) (setting forth test for qualified immunity).

Casella v. Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyers Trust Account Board

47 F. App'x 193 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 30, 2002

We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity. Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 773 (3d Cir. 2000). … immunity.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Heppenstall Co.

633 F.2d 293 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 1980

The Instant Proceedings The employer is a sponsor of a qualified pension plan, funded through a tax-qualified trust of which Pittsburgh National Bank is the trustee. The employer is the plan administrator. … PBGC’s position at argument was that when the appropriate termination date is contested the court clearly has the power to fix a date earlier than the date of its final *300 judgment, and that applying the criteria of section

Thomas Hoffner, Jr. v.

870 F.3d 301 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 7, 2017

Section 2244(b)(2)(A) asks whether a claim “relies on” a qualifying new rule. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A). Section 2255(h) asks whether the motion “contain[s]” a qualifying new rule. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). … The Government agreed that Miller was a qualifying new rule.

Transorient Navigators Company, S.A., Cross-Appellant v. M/s Southwind, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Etc., in Rem and Westwind Africa Line, Ltd., Defendants-Third Party Cross-Appellees v. M/v Astros, in Rem and Transorient Navigators Co., S.A. In Personam, Third-Party Cross-Appellants. Flour Mills of Nigeria, Ltd. v. M/v Astros, in Rem and Transorient Navigators Co., S.A. In Personam, Cross-Appellants v. Westwind Africa Line, Ltd., and the M/s Southwind, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Etc., in Rem, Appellant-Cross Westwind Africa Line, Ltd v. The United States of America and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, New Orleans District

788 F.2d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 1986

We base our analysis on two well-established principles of admiralty. … The Suits in Admiralty Act's waiver of the Government's general defense of sovereign immunity limits interest to this rate.

Fredrick Capps v. Mondelez Global LLC

847 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 30, 2017

It is unnecessary to address whether Capps waived his ADA claim on appeal, since, even assuming the claim was not waived, it is clearly without merit. … There is clearly a lack of evidence to show that Mondelez did not make a good faith effort in accommodating Capps’ request for intermittent leave.