Case law

Khaimraj Singh v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 2004

As established. … But even in such cases, we qualifies as an aggravated felony.

United States v. Louis Goldstein, and Selma Goldstein

502 F.2d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 6, 1974

United States, 170 U.S. 606, 609-610 , 18 S.Ct. 774, 775 , 42 L.Ed. 1162 (1898) where the Court said, “We have no disposition to qualify what has already been frequently decided by this court, that where the crime is a statutory … one it must be charged with precision and certainty, and every ingredient of which it is composed must be clearly and accurately set forth, and that even in the cases of misdemeanors the indictment must be free from all

Cristian Guzman v. Attorney General United States

770 F.3d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 3, 2014

The application of a post- IIRIRA provision, namely, the stop-time rule, to alter the availability of certain relief based on conduct that took place pre-IIRIRA clearly has a retroactive effect. … They pled guilty to a non-qualifying crime under the reasonable assumption that doing so would not affect their immigration status.

Clark v. Clabaugh

20 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 1994

Fed.R.Evid. 702 (experts with scientific, technical or specialized knowledge must be qualified before testifying). … that the evidence did not establish more than negligence.

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.

Sussex Drug Products v. Kanasco, Ltd.

920 F.2d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 19, 1990

An order that eliminates two of several elements of damages flowing from a single claim does not qualify for Rule 54(b) certification. Marino v. Nevitt, 311 F.2d 406, 408 (3d Cir.1963). … One Court, apprehensive about settling on a single test, decided that the best approach was to “state rules of thumb to identify certain types of claims that clearly cannot be separate.”

De Filippo v. Ford Motor Co.

516 F.2d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 8, 1975

The first interrogatory was clearly limited to the element of agreement; the jury found only a “contract, combination, or conspiracy entered into between Ford and the Philadelphia area Ford dealers.” … The agreement of sale and purchase could cover physical, movable assets, thus qualifying as “goods”, as well as other assets — such as receivables from their particular lines — not so qualifying.

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.

United States v. Jeffrey Bentley

49 F.4th 275 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2022

The sentencing record does not clearly indi- cate whether the court relied on the plea memorandum’s stipu- lations, looked to the PSR’s conclusions, or did both. … He argues that “[t]he government failed to satisfy its burden to establish that Mr. Bentley had been convicted under subsection (a)” of the North Carolina law. Appellant Br. 30.

Watson v. United States

355 F.2d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 22, 1965

In 1956, the company and the United Mine Workers Union established a pension plan for certain qualified employees. … It concerned the establishment of a college for the poor.

Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party

104 F.3d 1256 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 3, 1997

In order to determine if a defendant qualifies as an “employer” and, consequently, whether ADEA will even apply, we must turn to ADEA’s definitions’ section. … immaterial or insubstantial. 11 We do not believe, and Copenhaver/Bell does not contend, that Garcia’s claim is clearly immaterial, made solely for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction, nor is it insubstantial or frivolous

United States v. Stephen A. Knox

32 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 1994

This motion was made during the new briefing schedule established by us on November 17, 1993. … Our interpretation simply declines to create an absolute immunity for pornographers who pander to pedophiles by using as their subjects children whose genital areas are barely covered. VI.

Brian Constantine v. New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance Div

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 6, 2024

and integrity to qualify for licensure.” … Congress has clearly done the former with respect to Title II ADA claims. See id. at 518; 42 U.S.C. § 12202.

Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

308 F.3d 286 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 15, 2002

S 1291.2 We clearly do not write on a clean slate. … City of Anniston, 597 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1979) ("Validation, in general, requires a demonstration that ‘the qualifying tests are appropriate for the selection of qualified applicants for the job in question.’ ") (quoting

Wendy Osorio Martinez v. Attorney General United States

893 F.3d 153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 18, 2018

This is clearly the correct reading, and not merely because the Landon Court relied on United States ex rel. Knauff v. … As we observed, “the power to expel or exclude aliens [i]s a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control,” id. at 439 (quoting Fiallo v.

Union Railroad Company v. United Steelworkers of America United Steelworkers of America - District 10 United Steelworkers of America - Local 3263, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc v. United States of America and Surface Transportation Board, Union Railroad Company ("Urr") and Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company ("B&le"), Intervenors

242 F.3d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 1, 2001

consolidations would be hindered: "We would invite a barrage of collateral challenges to the ICC's authority which would be likely to frustrate and delay the administration of mergers in a way that section [11321(a)] was clearly … To qualify for the separation allowance, however, an employee on leave had to return to work within twenty days.

American Dredging Company v. Local 25

338 F.2d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 1964

Some tests are well established. … The right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effect, and defeated if they receive another (citing cases).

Andrews v. Chemical Carriers, Inc.

457 F.2d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 15, 1972

three mates (including the chief mate), there was evidence to support the district court’s finding that on the voyage into drydock in preparation for the annual inspection of the tanks by shipyard officials, it was the established … matter of law either (a) because Andrews could have avoided the overwork and resulting stress which caused his injuries by delegating supervision of the tank cleaning operations to one of the many others on board who were qualified

Johnson v. New Jersey, Division of Motor Vehicles

134 F. App'x 507 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 2005

Police are afforded qualified immunity in the performance of their jobs. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Johnson fails to allege that any of the officers violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. (citations omitted).

Lavino Shipping Co. v. S. C. Loveland Co.

114 F.2d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 1940

To controvert the testimony offered by Loveland, Lavino produced one witness (Schaumburg), who qualified as an expert. Schaumburg, also, was *967 interested. … It was, therefore, not error for the trial court to reject Schaumburg’s testimony that the lighter was unseaworthy; and, without that testimony, her seaworthiness was clearly established.