Case law

E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. United States

460 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2006

Instead, they interpreted §§ 107 and 113 as establishing two “clearly distinct” remedies: “cost recovery” under § 107(a), and “contribution” under § 113(f). … , b]ut the two remedies are clearly distinct.”

No. 93-5080

27 F.3d 58 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 1994

For example, a district court would abuse its discretion if it "based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence." … Thus, the mere failure of a complaint to withstand a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss should not be thought to establish a rule violation.

DeJESUS v. UNITED STATES

479 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 14, 2007

While LZ-II is a privately run group home, its location, organization and funding make it "part of" the VA Coatesville compound, which is clearly a qualifying facility. … The MHPA grants immunity to such institutions unless the plaintiff can show willful conduct or gross negligence. 50 Pa.

Lichtenstein v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

691 F.3d 294 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, Lichtenstein has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. … In Kohls , the employee engaged in behavior prior to taking FMLA leave that was clearly sufficient to warrant her termination. 259 F.3d at 805 .

Finizie v. Shineski

351 F. App'x 668 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2009

Under that framework, Finizie bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. … It is well-established that, under Title VII, an “employer has discretion to choose among equally qualified candidates, provided the decision is not based upon unlawful criteria.” Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v.

Lincoln Griswold v. Coventry First LLC

762 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 2014

He then established the Lincoln T. … immunity inquiry nor that there are ‘compelling reasons’ . . . that would justify invoking our rarely appropriate pendent appellate jurisdiction.”)

United States v. Oscar Clemons

843 F.2d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 31, 1988

Cornish, Dennis, Bishop, and two others— all prior felons — testified against Clemons pursuant to a grant of immunity. Our focus is the involvement of Dennis. … On April 27, 1984, the government granted Dennis immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony before the grand jury and in subsequent trials.

Latta v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

212 F.2d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 24, 1954

The second is whether, if the regulation is valid, the trustees of this trust have a sufficient adverse interest to qualify under the terms of the regulation. … The committee reports show very clearly why it was omitted.

Judson C. Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation Quaker State Corporation

72 F.3d 326 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 1995

In order to establish a prima facie case, Brewer must show that he: (1) is over 40; (2) is qualified for the position in question; (3) suffered an adverse employment decision; and (4) was replaced by a sufficiently younger … We cannot say the district court applied the incorrect legal standdrd, nor were its factual findings clearly erroneous.

United States of America on Behalf of Its Agency Internal Revenue Service v. William H. Norton, Carrie W. Norton, F/k/a Carrie A. Woodward

717 F.2d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1983

Even that statute, which on its face seems to mandate the cancellation of mutual debts, has been interpreted as giving broad discretion to the courts and as recognizing setoff rights only “as established in common law and … Although the Code does not expressly distinguish the right of setoff and the exercise of that right, those who drafted that legislation clearly saw setoff as a right that should be preserved.

Frederick Hudson Gaskins v. William B. Tarpley, in No. 19398 v. Aeroprojects Incorporated. Appeal of Charles Dana McKinney Jr

456 F.2d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 16, 1972

The evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to have rationally concluded that plaintiff had established the duty owed him by the defendants, and that the defendants breached that duty. … Both the experts were eminently qualified scientists, and their testimony was sufficient to demonstrate expertise with regard to the particular type of chemicals being utilized in the testing at Aeroprojects, Inc.

Lewis M. Wagner v. Reading Company

428 F.2d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 27, 1970

In the context of this claim, we do not believe that medical testimony was required to establish plaintiff's inability to work when such inability was allegedly caused by pain which medical testimony had already established … Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 378 F.2d 392 (3rd Cir. 1967), relied on by the defendant, is clearly inapplicable.

Giant Eagle Inc v. Commissioner IRS

822 F.3d 666 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 6, 2016

10-cent discount to its customers who had purchased qualifying groceries with their Advantage Cards. A. … only recalculate a taxpayer’s liabilities without respect to the accounting method regularly used in keeping his books if “no method of accounting has been regularly used by the taxpayer, or if the method used does not clearly

United States v. Stephayne McClure-Potts

908 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 8, 2018

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s finding that McClure-Potts did not qualify for the § 2L1.1(b)(1) three offense level reduction. B. … Samarin’s Testimony McClure-Potts contends that the District Court’s factual findings—where the District Court credited Samarin’s versions of the events rather than hers—was “clearly erroneous.”

Chabal v. Reagan

822 F.2d 349 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 1987

Secs. 1346 , 1491, because it is only under the terms of the Tucker Act that the United States waives its sovereign immunity to non-tort claims seeking monetary relief. See Hahn v. … On expiration of his term, a marshal shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies, unless sooner removed by the President. 28 U.S.C.

Americans United for Separation of Church & State v. Reagan

786 F.2d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 1986

It alleges further that the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Vatican amounts to an establishment of religion in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. … The plaintiffs urge, however, that the basic Frothingham rule does not control the standing issue in this case, suggesting instead that they qualify for the exception, articulated in Flast v.

United States v. Hilton A. Lake, Hilton A. Lake

150 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 21, 1998

Lake contends that the evidence failed to establish that the gun was not a toy. Appellant’s Br. at 18. … This instruction was accurate, and although the court refused to give Lake’s requested instruction reiterating all of the elements of the carjacking offense, the court’s refusal clearly does not justify reversal.

Newsome v. Administrative Office of the Courts

51 F. App'x 76 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 2002

Thereafter, the AOC moved for summary judgment on the LAD claim on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the District Court granted that motion by Order entered November 14, 2000. … Remaining claims The District Court entered judgment for the AOC on the LAD claim on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Reinaldo Cortez-Amador v. Attorney General United States of America

66 F.4th 429 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 25, 2023

Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”), a classification available to immigrants who are under 21 and were abandoned by their parents. 1 1 As relevant here, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) states that the following qualify … Second, the BIA determined that the IJ properly exercised its discretion in denying Petitioner’s application for adjustment of status because he did not clearly err in considering the entire record and determining that negative

Jackman v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States

145 F.2d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 29, 1944

Thus was the intention of the settlor clearly and unambiguously stated. … The instant case is clearly distinguishable from Brubaker v.