Case law

Hilda Kennedy v. New Jersey Court System

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 6, 2026

or judicial immunity. … She alleged that the judge failed to comply with her request for “extra assistance” and to “please speak slowly, loudly, and clearly.” Id. at ⁋32.

Samy Jecrois v. Mark Sojak

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

The District Court also concluded the right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established at the time of Jecrois’s arrest. … They alternatively contend that (1) probable cause existed for the lesser offense of sexual contact under New Jersey law, entitling them to qualified immunity or (2) the law on this issue was not clearly established at the

Tran v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 12, 2005

He was not prosecuted in Michigan, and seems to have been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. … This language leaves open the door for an argument that reckless conduct qualifies as the “use of force.”

Accardi v. IT Litigation Trust

448 F.3d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 25, 2006

Participants claimed that the Plan did not qualify for “unfunded,” “top hat” status under ERISA, and was thus subject to ERISA’s funding and fiduciary duty requirements. … As discussed above, the terms of the Plan and Trust documents clearly and unambiguously evince the Corporation’s intent to create an unfunded top hat plan.

McCraig Huval Kathy Huval v. Offshore Pipelines, Inc. Bud's Boat Rntl Inc. And B & I Welding Services & Consultants, Inc. Defendant--Third Party Plaintiff--Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Julius F. Eirich, Jr., Third Party Defendant- Appellant- Cross-Appellee v. North Star Agency, Inc., Third Party Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, and Excell Mel Underwriters, Third Party

86 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

qualified to testify as an expert, and therefore B & I failed to present expert testimony sufficient to establish the extent or breach of North Star's duty. 2 The district court qualified B & I's expert, Mr. … North Star does not attempt to show that this finding was clearly erroneous

Chester Dobbins, at 77-1213 v. Crain Brothers, Inc., a Corporation, and Third-Party Plaintiff- at 77-1214 v. The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, a Corporation, Third-Party and at 77-1215

567 F.2d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 1977

. § 905 (1970) (LHWCA) 5 , the stevedore-employer of an injured longshoreman or harbor worker is immune from all tort liability. … Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., supra, which allowed contribution between the stevedore-employer and the vessel owner, are clearly distinguishable from the case sub judice.

United States of America Ex Rel. Gerardo Catena v. Albert Elias, Superintendent of Youth Reception and Correction Center at Yardville, N. J

465 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 8, 1972

California, 370 U.S. 660 , 82 S.Ct. 1417 , 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962), clearly indicates is made binding on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. We have doubts that this issue is ripe for adjudication. … Once the purely investigative character of a commission is established, fine distinctions in the type of procedures involved do not make significant constitutional differences. 22 . See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) —(c) (Supp.

Curtis Company (Formerly Curtis Engineering Company) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

232 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 1956

Commissioner, 6 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 110 ; involve substantially similar fact problems and clearly uphold the Tax Court. In Goldberg v. … Taxpayer’s facts patently would not qualify for favored treatment under that section.

Li Wu Lin v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

238 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 24, 2001

To qualify for political asylum, the first type of relief, an alien must be a “refugee” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a). … In this case Lin seeks to establish that he has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinions.

United States v. Banks

372 F. App'x 237 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 2010

In his motion, Banks argued that, because he is a Lakota Sioux Indian, he is subject exclusively to the “Laws of the Tribe,” and “therefore is immune from suit.” (Dist.Ct. No. 312.) … Because Banks was thus clearly charged with “offenses against the laws of the United States,” there can be no question that the District Court had jurisdiction over Banks’s case. See, e.g., United States v.

Floyd Newton v. Commissioner Social Security

983 F.3d 643 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 22, 2020

). 9  Although the word “wholly,” as it modifies “service,” provides little assistance in discerning the plain meaning of the uniformed services exception, other textual indicia clearly … establish that dual status technicians are excluded from its coverage.

Connection Training Services v. City of Philadelphia

358 F. App'x 315 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 22, 2009

Congress enacted § 1983 as a federal cause of action against the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Town of Castle Rock v. … In this case, CTS argues that Defendants’ refusal to qualify its training program for the wage exemption violated its due process rights; therefore, CTS argues it was deprived by non-legislative action.

Latessa v. New Jersey Racing Commission

113 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 9, 1997

To have a property interest in a job, "a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Op., at 1320. 64 While I take issue with the majority's premise that there may not have been a "lie" (the record clearly establishes that Latessa made inconsistent statements about the Milici matter), I am more concerned

Bell v. United States

754 F.2d 490 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 30, 1985

In arguing for its interpretation, Travelers apparently ignored the import of section 103’s qualifying language “of a kind.” … As such, a truck clearly comes under the Code’s definition of "vehicle.”

In Re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation Mdl

288 F.3d 83 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 2002

In Alexander , the Supreme Court held that finality was established only if the nonparties stood in contempt. … Later, the Court established a three-part test for determining whether an order qualifies for immediate review.

Ruth Ellis v. Ringgold School District

832 F.2d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 29, 1987

On this record we cannot say that the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous and therefore we must affirm the judgment on back pay. The district court, however, did not resolve the reinstatement issue. … The evidence established that at the time of trial plaintiff was qualified to teach ir the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Reynaldo Sandoval v. Janet Reno, Attorney General Doris Meissner, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Immigration and Naturalization Service Department of Justice and J. Scott Blackman, Acting District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Reynaldo Sandoval v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

166 F.3d 225 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 26, 1999

Accordingly, Sandoval was entitled to remain in the country, and eventually qualify for citizenship, provided that he did not commit an act subjecting him to deportation. … Argentina moved to dismiss on the basis of immunity granted to foreign sovereigns under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), Pub.L.

United States v. Clemmons, Ralph

892 F.2d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 1990

Both his indictment and the evidence at trial clearly suffice to support his conviction. A. … Inferences from established facts are accepted methods of proof when no direct evidence is available so long as there exists a logical and convincing connection between the facts established and the conclusion inferred.

Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp.

602 F.3d 495 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 2010

Rite Aid responds by arguing, inter alia, that Colwell “cannot establish either that she is disabled or that she suffered an adverse employment action, as the result of which plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodations

Whitehead v. Shugars

71 F. App'x 99 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 16, 2003

To establish his injury, Plaintiff would have to demonstrate that Defendant’s violation of his constitutional rights caused an erroneous adverse decision by the Commonwealth Court. … Our cases discussing prosecutorial immunity, an issue we need not reach in this case, note that such immunity does not leave citizens completely *103 without a remedy against abusive prosecution.