Case law

Sommer v. Vanguard Group

461 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2006

Congress enacted the FMLA in 1993 to accommodate “the important societal interest in assisting families, by establishing a minimum labor standard for leave.” Churchill v. … Such a result is clearly incompatible with the terms of § 2614(a)(3)(A), (B). Finally, we observe that, were we to agree with Sommer’s argument, its practical application would create an anomaly.

Darren James v. New Jersey Department of Healt

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 18, 2022

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (government official protected from liability under qualified immunity unless the facts alleged show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, qualified immunity was appropriate. law to conclude that he did not qualify as a prescribing physician under the act. See Appellant’s Br. at 3, 7.

Vulcan Pioneers, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Civil Service

832 F.2d 811 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 10, 1987

The Technical Standards of the Uniform Guidelines establish requirements for proving content validity. … In arguing that the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, the State does not present evidence that particular findings are clearly erroneous; rather its argument centers on the contention that the court Should

Hughes v. Tropello

296 F. 306 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 25, 1924

This provision is qualified by the proviso that such decision, shall be based upon the certificate of the examining medical officer, and shall be final as to the rejection of aliens affected with any dangerous contagious … have no reference to the commencement of a proceeding to establish the right to deport, as this right has already been conclusively established.

Ambassador East, Inc. v. Orsatti, Inc., and Arnold Orsatti

257 F.2d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 26, 1958

The name is taken from the Pump Room in Bath, England, with the consent and approval of the proprietors of that establishment. … It is entitled to have its name protected in full, not modified by other people’s qualifying names and, at least on the facts before us, not limited by distance.

22 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1818, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,004 Lila Jean Jackson v. U. S. Steel Corporation. Lila Jean Jackson, in No. 79-2198. U. S. Steel Corporation, in No. 79-2199

624 F.2d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 1980

Steel eliminated Jackson's position as a result of a legitimate business reorganization, (2) did not clearly indicate the basis of its finding that Jackson had established her prima facie case of discrimination with regard … , and I cannot find such evidence in the record, those findings must be set aside as clearly erroneous. 32 The district court's opinion demonstrates clearly that the court relied on statistics and comparisons of Jackson's

N. L. Wymard and George L. Stark, Receivers of Kemmel & Co., Inc., Debtor v. McCloskey & Co., Inc.

342 F.2d 495 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 11, 1965

Stark were, by Order of this Court, dated March 2, 1960, appointed receivers of Kemmel & Co., Inc., Debtor Plaintiff in the above entitled matter and have duly qualified and are now acting in such capacity as receivers. “ … Mere mistake or oversight as to the legal consequence of facts clearly alleged in the complaint does not vitiate such consent.

William Eshleman v. Patrick Industries Inc

961 F.3d 242 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 29, 2020

While the statute is silent on the meaning of “minor,” the ADA regulations clearly state that an employer must establish that the perceived impairment is objectively both transitory and minor. 39 29 C.F.R. § 1630.15(f) states … : “To establish this defense, a covered entity must demonstrate that the impairment is both ‘transitory’ and ‘minor.’

Denise Mannella v. Commissioner IRS

631 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

“It is well-established that an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. … To repeat: “[i]t is well-established that an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 50 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 .

Sistrunk v. Rozum

674 F.3d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 20, 2012

The District Court concluded that the Pennsylvania state courts’ disposition of Sistrunk’s appeal 2 was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal … Under AEDPA, moreover, we must deny the writ unless the petitioner shows that the state court conviction unreasonably applied clearly established federal law, was contrary to clearly established federal law, or was based

Maia Caplan, in 95-1445 v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey David L. Braverman. Maia Caplan v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey David L. Braverman, Vigilant Insurance Company, in 95-1478

68 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 24, 1995

If the harm complained of is self-inflicted, it does not qualify as irreparable. See 11A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. … App. at 22. 75 The language of the policy, however, clearly provides for Vigilant to settle suits in which it is defending claims.

Alvin Emory v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp

401 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 11, 2005

Applicable Law The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals who suffer a “disability.” … Further, when compared to others, his learning impairments are clearly severe.

United States v. Pieri

888 F.2d 996 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 1990

That's exactly where you go. 19 And you have heard all these witnesses got great deals; they have all been immunized. These witnesses, some of them did come in and plead guilty. … The opinion of the panel, however, goes further, reading this court's case law to establish a per se reversal right whenever the government makes remarks regarding not only the defendant's guilt but also a witness credibility

Imperial Car Distributors, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

427 F.2d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 23, 1970

The parties concede that the Tax Court’s ultimate finding that the Imperial payments were taxable dividends is not subject to the clearly erroneous rule. See Kaltreider v. … In such a case, the burden is upon the taxpayer to establish the existence of true indebtedness rather than a disguised capital contribution. See P. M. Finance Corp. v.

Frank J. Valetti and Sarah J. Valetti v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

260 F.2d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 17, 1958

Beyond this, the government must establish its claim of fraud by something impressively more than a slight preponderance of evidence. On the whole case fraud must be clearly and convincingly established. Goldberg v. … “Although the existence of fraud may be gathered from circumstances, the piling of inference upon inference hardly qualifies as the clear and convincing evidence by which fraud must be proved.” See Goldberg v.

United States v. Tishon Brown, AKA Clarence Brown, Jr. Tishon Brown, United States of America v. Clarence Brown, AKA Tishon Brown Tishon Brown

254 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 2001

First, the court held that the two declarants’ observation of a man wielding a firearm qualified as a startling occasion. … Significantly, Brown all but concedes this point in his brief: “On it’s [sic] face, a man waving a gun and threatening to shoot people would appear to qualify.”

United States v. Donald MacIo Hurt

244 F.2d 46 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 3, 1957

He was requested to submit three types of approved civilian work which he was qualified to perform. … And since the ministerial exemption is a matter of legislative grace, the selective service registrant bears the burden of clearly establishing a right to the exemption.

Brown v. Moore

247 F.2d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 25, 1957

In this case, it is correct to say that the 'reason' originally given for the rule of immunity never did exist.' … No inference from words of general import can establish it.

37 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1862, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,315 Elizabeth L. Bellissimo v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., a Corporation Robert J. McGrath and Gerald B. Marcovsky, Individuals. Appeal of Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Gerald B. Marcovsky

764 F.2d 175 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 1985

She established that she was within a protected class, women, and that Westinghouse fired her from her job within the Legal Department even though she was qualified to work as an attorney there. … With deference to the clearly erroneous standard, we are convinced that Ms. Bellissimo failed to establish the pretextual nature of Westinghouse's reason for discharge.

National Labor Relations Board v. Local 542, 542-A & 542-B, International Union of Operating Engineers

485 F.2d 387 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 1973

Finally, the program began to seek apprentices from outside the established job referral group. … referral group only by qualifying for and completing the apprenticeship program. .