Case law

J. Donald GOODWIN, Appellant, v. ELKINS & CO., Robert G. Hayden, Richard Sichenzio, and Gabriel F. Nagy, Appellees

730 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 14, 1984

Significantly, the parties did not “clearly evidence a purpose to exclude such disputes.” Waddell I, 348 A.2d at 101 . … The Williamson court did no more than to hold that federal jurisdiction had been established before remanding for further proceedings.

United States v. Michael Wright

777 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 6, 2015

In Groh, the Supreme Court denied qualified immunity to officers who relied on a warrant that failed to particularly describe the items to be seized. … Consequently, “[t]he mere fact that the Magistrate issued [the] warrant d[id] not necessarily establish that he agreed that the scope of the search should be as broad as the affiant’s request.” Id. at 561.

PA Empl Benefit v. Zeneca Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 2007

The FDA has established specific regulations regarding such advertising. … As such, a presumption against a finding of preemption clearly applies in this case.

Engelhard Corp v. NLRB

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 14, 2006

NLRB, 536 F.2d 550, 555 (3d Cir. 1976) (“a waiver of a statutory right must be clearly and unmistakably established, . . . and express language will not be read expansively”). … According to the Board, that statement of intent “qualifies and informs” both the no-picketing obligation that the Union agreed to undertake in Article 28’s third sentence and the no-lockout obligation of Engelhard in Article

Shelley v. Wilson

339 F. App'x 136 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 2009

immunity from suit. … U.S., 742 F.2d 1498 (D.C.Cir.1984) (stating that as to common law and constitutional law false arrest claims, “subsequent conviction establishes as a matter of law that the arrest was justified.”).

United States v. David Paul Hammer

226 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 2000

The absence of such a requirement would seem to establish clearly that a defendant is not required to appeal a sentence of death. … Clearly, they do nothing more than specify the scope of review when an appeal is filed.

Grove v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

438 F.2d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 1971

The standard by which this conduct is to be judged is indeed critical to plaintiff’s action: clearly no test requiring “actual malice” can be satisfied by these operative facts. 2 New York Times v. … The application of a special privilege to this case would be an extension well beyond the limits previously established.

Peloro v. FBI

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 29, 2007

Second, she filed an independent lawsuit in the District Court, seeking to establish her ownership interest in the securities and to have the securities returned. A. … Bein, 214 F.3d at 413 (“Sovereign immunity protects the Government from suit except insofar as it has waived that immunity.

Phyllis M. Nelson, Etc., and Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, and Cross-Appellee v. Duncanson-Harrelson Co., Third Party

639 F.2d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 1981

The clearly erroneous rule applies to the trial court’s fact findings in this case. Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 U.S. 698 , 82 S.Ct. 1095 , 8 L.Ed.2d 205 (1962); McAllister v. … employer’s immunity from suit by virtue of hiring the employer.

A.S. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

769 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 9, 2014

Co., 517 U.S. 706, 712 (1996) (“[O]nly remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” (quotation marks omitted)); see also Feidt v. … Our Court has recognized a narrow exception to the general rule that orders issued in other cases do not qualify as a § 1446(b) “order.” In Doe v.

Temple University Hospital v. Secretary United States Dept

2 F.4th 121 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 2021

Temple contends that it qualifies for the lone exception to the channeling requirement. … Although it waives sovereign immunity, see 5 U.S.C. § 702, and provides several causes of action, see, e.g., id. § 706, the Administrative Procedure Act includes no independent grant of subject-matter jurisdiction, see Califano

Plummer v. United States

580 F.2d 72 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 26, 1978

Inasmuch as such determinations are not clearly erroneous, we may not reverse them. … Lawrence, supra note 9, is clearly correct.

Estate of Ronald Singletary v. City of Philadelphia

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 10, 2023

a violation of a clearly established constitutional right,” but not “whether the district court correctly identified the set of facts that the summary judgment record is sufficient to prove.”13 We recognize only a narrow … But the District Court erred in overriding those admissions, and such an error does not shield the denial of qualified immunity from appellate review.

Lewis v. Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 10, 2004

Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established must sh ow f i r s t t h a t coun sel’ s Federal law[.]”). … Esparza, 124 to clearly established federal law. As the S. Ct. at 10 (quoting Early v.

Pennsylvania Prison Society v. Cortés

508 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 5, 2007

First, an organization may be granted “standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the [organization or] association itself may enjoy.” … Voter ¡taxpayer plaintiffs 11 The complaint names seven plaintiffs who are “adult, competent individuals residing in Pennsylvania, and are qualified voters and taxpayers in Pennsylvania.” A94.

Helene Edwards Christine Streicher Diamond, and Helen Edwards Christine Streicher Diamond California Coalition of Welfare Rights Organizations Sharon Lilly Judith A. Tillings Plaintiffs-Intervenors/appellees v. Linda S. McMahon Director of the State Department of Social Services Department of Social Services, an Agency of the State of California Michael Franchetti, Director of the Department of Finance of the State of California Dept. Of Finance, an Agency of the State of California Defendants/counter-Claimants, Third-Party v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Third-Party

834 F.2d 796 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 16, 1987

But statutes are law; when Congress speaks clearly, its command needs no blessing from the courts to become fully effective. … Sovereign immunity poses no bar. Congress has waived sovereign immunity for actions seeking relief other than damages in federal court against a government official. 5 U.S.C.

United States v. Michael Torres

961 F.3d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 5, 2020

The Supreme Court has not established a bright-line rule to distinguish a warrantless arrest from an investigatory stop. But the “reasonableness of the intrusion is the touchstone” of our analysis. Baker v. … Terry recognized that when officers are investigating a suspect who the officers reasonably believe “is armed and presently dangerous to the officer[s] or to others, it would . . . be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer

Zachary Spada v. Richard Houghton

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 2024

Finally, the defendants urge us to affirm the District Court’s decision on qualified immunity grounds. The District Court did not decide this issue. … immunity.

United States v. Dung Bui

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 20, 2014

McQuilkin, 78 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 1996) established that § 3553(f) did not apply to convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 860. … The District Court also held that Hampden Park qualified as a school “under the broad language of § 860(a) . . . .” (J.A. 10.)

Joseph Malcomb v. Craig McKean

535 F. App'x 184 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2013

On appeal, Malcomb, now represented by counsel, argues that he pled sufficient facts to establish the favorable termination element of his malicious prosecution claim. … Malcomb argues3 that the nolle prosequi issued by the Court of Common Pleas qualified as a favorable termination and that the District Court ignored this Court’s decision in Hilfirty when it dismissed Malcomb’s complaint