Case law

Moore, Am-2804 v. Tartler

986 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 1, 1993

A sentencing judge is required to establish minimum and maximum sentencing dates under 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. §§ 9756(a) and (b). … Lundblade, 631 F.Supp. at 219 7 Because of our results, we do not to reach the issue of whether the parole board officials are entitled to qualified immunity

David Webb v. State of Delaware

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2023

immunity. … As to Webb’s basic negligence claims against the officials in their individual capacities, the District Court properly dismissed these claims on qualified immunity grounds.

Adams Outdoor Advertising Ltd v. PA Dept of Transportation

930 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 2019

The Interchange Prohibition clearly conveys what it prohibits. … It does not matter, for purposes of our standing analysis, that Adams challenges the Prohibition by pointing to exemptions for which it does not qualify.

Westmoreland Human Opportunities, Inc. v. James R. Walsh, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Life Service Systems, Inc. Life Service Systems, Inc

246 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2001

In terms of our analysis, we do not question the District Court’s reading of Pennsylvania law, and assume that ordinary contract rights would qualify as such property interests under that state law; it is well-established … By accepting an invitation to sit on the LSS’s Unsecured Creditors Committee, WHO clearly incurred a fiduciary obligation to its fellow Committee members.

Warren v. Kyler

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 7, 2005

First, federal habeas relief is warranted if the state conviction was “contrary to...clearly established Federal law.” … In either case we must first identify the applicable “clearly established Federal law.”

Doctor Alfred Bennun v. Rutgers State University Board of Governors of Rutgers State University and Doctor Edward J. Bloustein, President (Civil Rights No. 84-4655). Dr. Alfred Bennun v. Rutgers State University Board of Governors of Rutgers State University and Dr. Edward J. Bloustein, President, Rutgers State University (Civil Rights No. 85-3491). Dr. Alfred Bennun v. Rutgers State University (Civil Rights No. 86-621). Rutgers, the State University Board of Governors of Rutgers, the State University and Dr. Edward J. Bloustein

941 F.2d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 1991

We have, however, held that such a dispute will satisfy the earlier hurdle of establishing the qualifications of the professor, as long as the plaintiff demonstrates that "he was sufficiently qualified to be among those persons … This concession did not relieve Bennun of the need to establish a prima facie case on the merits of his Title VII claim.

Contractors Ass'n of Eastern Pennsylvania v. Secretary of Labor

442 F.2d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 22, 1971

This commitment is not intended and shall not be used to discriminate against any qualified applicant or employee. … Clearly the Philadelphia Plan is color-conscious.

United States v. Lawrence Murray

468 F. App'x 104 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 2012

review for procedural error, “such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly … We reject, however, Murray’s argument that the estimate of tax loss did not qualify as “reasonable ” under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1.

Carver v. Foerster

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 12, 1996

Foerster also claimed qualified immunity for his actions as a member of the Salary Board. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 (1985) (ruling on qualified immunity immediately appealable). See also See also Nixon v.

UNITED STATES of America v. Thomas DeMICHAEL. Patricia DeMichael, Appellant

461 F.3d 414 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 2006

Patricia DeMichael now claims that an appeal of any portion of the judgment qualifies DeMichael for wholesale abatement of his .conviction and any remaining punishment. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree. II. … In his brief, DeMichael clearly stated that the only issue he was appealing was the propriety of the fine. 4 Thus, he waived his right to appeal his conviction. See Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am. v.

Zdzislaw Janusiak v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

947 F.2d 46 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 1991

“To qualify for a grant of asylum, ... an applicant must demonstrate a ‘well-founded fear of persecution.’ ” Id. … In this appeal, Janusiak asserts that his fear of persecution is well-founded and clearly probable for two reasons. We will address each justification for asylum and withholding of deportation in turn. A.

Gavin Coco v. Josh Dear

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2024

Qualified Immunity Because the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees on all of Coco’s constitutional claims, it never reached the merits of Appellees’ qualified immunity defense. … Notably, however, the cases the Appellees cite dealt with situations where summary judgment was denied and qualified immunity was therefore denied by implication.

Meurer Steel Barrel Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.

144 F.2d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 21, 1944

The deficiency was established well within that extended date. This view as to the expansion of the eighteen months limitation under Section 275(b) by 275(c) is supported by the decisions. In Ewald v. … The word ‘omits’ is in no way qualified by the context of the Revenue Act.

Gary R. Becker v. Interstate Properties, Interstate Construction Corporation, Windsor Contracting Corp., Lawrence Corporation, Diamond Reo, Jamesway Company, Willard F. Edwards, John Doe and Richard Roe, Saul Silverman, A.I.A., Raymond Keyes Engineers. Interstate Properties and I. P. Construction Corp., Third-Party v. Wood Pine Constructors, Inc

569 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 30, 1978

Johnson, 44 since they represent the only extensive judicial discussion of the issue aside from Majestic. 45 42 Coleman is more clearly distinguishable. … Those cases may establish still another exception to employer immunity 21 Supra note 20 22 117 N.J.Super. 444 -45, 285 A.2d at 62 23 56 N.J. 482, 487 , 267 A.2d 481, 484 (1970) quoting Long v.

Hooker v. United States Post Office

255 F. App'x 658 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 30, 2007

The Postal Service, as “an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States,” see 39 U.S.C. § 201, enjoys sovereign immunity absent a specific waiver. See U.S. Postal Service v. … However, the FTCA qualifies its waiver of sovereign immunity for certain categories of claims, one of which pertains to postal operations.

Erie County Retirees Ass'n v. County of Erie

220 F.3d 193 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 2000

The burden is on the employer to establish that its actions are lawful under the equal benefit or equal cost standard. See 29 U.S.C. § 623 (f)(2). . … Clearly, section 623(Z)(2) contemplates that an employer might reduce retiree health benefits at age 65.

Resolution Trust Corporation, in Its Capacity as Receiver for City Savings, F.S.B., and the Resolution Trust Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity v. Cityfed Financial Corp. Richard E. Simmons K. Michael Defreytas John W. Atherton, Jr. Gordon E. Allen Alfred J. Hedden Peter R. Kellogg John Kean, Jr. Gilbert G. Roessner George E. Mikula James P. McTernan Victor A. Pelson Marshall M. Criser. Resolution Trust Corporation, in Its Capacity as Receiver for City Savings, F.S.B. v. John W. Atherton, Jr. Gordon E. Allen Alfred J. Hedden Peter R. Kellogg John Kean, Jr. Gilbert G. Roessner James P. McTernan Resolution Trust Corporation, in Its Capacity as Receiver for City Savings, F.S.B., in No. 94-5307. Resolution Trust Corporation v. Alfred J. Schuster Thomas J. Lynam Martin R. Siegel Richard P. Pearlman Joan C. Moonan, Individually and as of the Estate of Robert J. Moonan Eugene J. Elias George Hurley William B. Brick James W. Dwyer Harry H. Jaeger John R. Hipple John C. Lauricella Louis A. Iatarola. Martin R. Siegel, and Joan C. Moonan, as of the Estate of Robert J. Moonan and Individually, in No. 94-5308

57 F.3d 1231 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 23, 1995

Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. … These "insulating" statutes provide for various amounts of immunity to directors and officers.

Animal Science Products, Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp.

654 F.3d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 2011

District Court‟s April 1, 2010 opinion also: (1) denied with prejudice the defendants‟ abstention defense under the act-of-state doctrine; (2) denied without prejudice the defendants‟ defense pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities … Ct. 1237, 1244-47 (2010) (applying Arbaugh‟s “clearly states” rule to determine that the Copyright Act‟s registration requirement is not jurisdictional).

J. Doe v. Linda Reivitz and John F. Erickson, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs v. Otis Bowen and Kay Willmoth, Third-Party J. Doe v. Linda Reivitz, Individually and in Her Capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services and John F. Erickson, Individually and in His Capacity as Director of the Bureau of Economic Assistance of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, and Their Agents, Employees, Successors in Office, Assistants and All Others Acting in Concert or Cooperation With Them or at Their Control, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs v. Otis Bowen, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Kay Willmoth, Regional Administrator of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance, in Chicago, Illinois, Third-Party

830 F.2d 1441 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 22, 1988

Secs. 645 (b)(1)(B), 632a(b), 614 (1982). 11 Congress requires AFDC eligibility as a condition of qualifying for participation in demonstration projects and work supplementation programs established under these sections. … The state and federal defendants relied upon essentially the same arguments in their briefs 6 The dissent contends that the statutory scheme establishing the AFDC and AFDC-UP programs clearly reveals Congress' intent on this

Susan Lloyd v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 2026

The District Court determined, inter alia, that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to their official-capacity liability 6; that Lloyd’s 5 Lloyd voluntarily dismissed her claims against the … Qualified immunity is a defense to liability “in a personal- capacity action,” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985), not an official-capacity action.