Case law

Sergey Aleynikov v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc

765 F.3d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 3, 2014

Here, the District Court’s order is clearly forward-looking and indeterminate, as it requires Goldman to pay Aleynikov’s attorney’s fees as he incurs them. … The doctrine of contra proferentem is well established in Delaware contract law.

Galloway v. United States

492 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

The Government argues that § 2055(e) clearly applies to the bequests at issue here. It argues that a split-interest trust is clearly defined by the language of § 2055(e). … It is -a well-established precept of tax law that, in interpreting statutes, the literal meaning of the statute is most important, and we are always to read the statute in its “ordinary and natural sense.”

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.

Drelles v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

90 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 2004

It is well established that in a conflict between decisions of different panels, the oldest one controls. E.g., Ryan v. Johnson, 115 F.3d 193, 198 (3rd Cir.1997). … Behrend insists that the $75 rate results in an impermissible profit for Specter be *592 cause the document retrieval was too menial to qualify as bona fide legal work.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Bankers Trust Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

658 F.2d 103 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 13, 1981

Fair market value “is established by contemporaneous sales of like property,” Standard Oil of New Jersey v. … Villaneuva contends that the district court’s valuation finding was clearly erroneous because it was based upon a contemporaneous sales market established by the sale of only one ship, the GOLAR MARTITA.

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.

Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh

811 F.2d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 1987

Finally, the district court’s conclusion that the fourth prong of Strathie is likely to be satisfied was also not clearly wrong. … Evidence also established that appellees could find treatment only at ARC centers. FF 80, 82.

Edward R. Dowd v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

846 F.2d 193 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 3, 1988

The record further establishes that Dowd was employed as a “bagger” for over 20 years in the facility in which this processing took place. … The fact that Dowd’s employer prepared anthracite to the specifications of its customers is clearly not grounds for his exclusion given the fact that the Act expressly includes those who work in “custom coal preparation”

Hackett v. Price

381 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 2004

, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s failure to do so was contrary to clearly established federal law. … For these reasons, I conclude that Hack-ett has established a Mills error, and that the state court’s rejection of this claim resulted in an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Berg v. United States

806 F.2d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

See generally In re Swine Flu Immunization Prod. Liab. … Lattes did not act negligently is amply supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous.

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp.

575 F.2d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 21, 1978

Strong policy considerations dictate that only those employers who hire the handicapped with knowledge of their disabilities qualify for limited liability. … Conditions that are latent rather than manifest to a prospective employer do not qualify as § 8(f) disabilities.

Patricia M. Pivirotto v. Innovative Systems, Inc

191 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 7, 1999

The jury therefore might well have concluded that Pivirotto was replaced by a man, which would clearly render the instruction harmless. … Although it did not use the term, the District Court was clearly referring to the familiar prima facie case of a gender-discrimination claim.

Soobrian v. Attorney General of the United States

388 F. App'x 182 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 2010

[is] clearly supported by th[e] record” and is more likely than not to happen, App. 80, the BIA may only disturb these factual findings if they are clearly erroneous. … To qualify for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3) as a member of a “particular social group,” an alien must: (1) identify a group that constitutes a “particular social group”; (2) establish that he or she

Birdman v. Office of the Governor

677 F.3d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 12, 2012

Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985) (“[A]n agency‟s decision not to take enforcement action should be presumed immune from judicial review . . . .”). … “„[W]hen Congress acted to establish the District Court of the Virgin Islands, it established it as a court of original and general jurisdiction.‟” Edwards v.

Mintzer v. Arthur L. Wright & Co.

263 F.2d 823 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 17, 1959

The appointment of a receiver was never subject to jury trial, it being an equitable remedy within the discretion of the chancellor to grant upon a showing that the harm accruing to plaintiff by denial clearly overbalanced … We turn then in this diversity suit to an examination of the law of Pennsylvania in order to ascertain whether the qualified plaintiff was entitled to appointment of a receiver for defendant’s assets.