Case law

Trap Rock Industries, Inc. v. Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers, Afl-Cio

982 F.2d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 1992

Second, “[u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator.” … Summary judgment is required where the non-moving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

George L. Reynolds v. Jack C. Ellingsworth, Warden and Charles M. Oberly, III

843 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 1988

Noia deliberate bypass test, 372 U.S. 391, 438 , 83 S.Ct. 822, 848 , 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), it did not immunize these requirements from scrutiny. … This witness, Detective Perry, had been qualified at the hearing as an expert on "body language."

Charles Texter v. Todd Merlina

333 F. App'x 680 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 26, 2009

Texter does not further explain his claim, other than arguing that qualified immunity is more appropriately addressed at the summary judgment stage rather than on a motion to dismiss. … To the extent Texter contends that the District Court erred in granting the motions to dismiss of prosecutors Jill McCracken and John Nelson based on absolute and qualified immunity, we disagree.

Vicki Miller v. Philadelphia Geriatric Center

463 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2006

First Nat'l Bank, 764 F.2d 950, 954 (3d Cir.1985). 9 The FTCA is a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States. … The absence of a wrongful death claim would not have been surprising in light of the fact that Miller did not qualify as one of the enumerated beneficiaries for whom the statute created a right of action.

Everett Melvin Roberts v. United States of America, and Union Carbide Corporation, Etc.

316 F.2d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 18, 1963

Peskin was not qualified to testify because he has had no practical experience in the manufacture of abrasive wheels. “Defendant’s arguments are addressed to the wrong forum. … There was also sufficient evidence to establish actual or constructive knowledge of harm from the type of exposure to which plaintiff was sub *495 jected.

In Re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Product Liability Litigation

706 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 28, 2013

Cauthen‟s lungs “clearly have some restriction.” (Id. at 796.) Because Ms. … Fortin‟s declaration establishes that Ms.

Showers v. Beard

635 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 28, 2011

He therefore advised Rudinski to secure a qualified expert to address the impossibility of disguising Roxanol, and provided him with contact information for three potential witnesses. … Thus, we conclude that the Superior Court’s decision here is contrary to and an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Luther W. Borror, Administrator of the Estate of Bonita Ann Curtician, Deceased v. Sharon Steel Company, a Corporation

327 F.2d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 27, 1964

Third, we think it is clearly demonstrable, Rule 17(a) aside, that Borror has the capacity to maintain the suit under Rule 17(b). … Such a concept seems clearly within the contemplation of Pennsylvania practice.

Wilson v. Asten-Hill Manufacturing Co.

791 F.2d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 21, 1986

In return for these guaranteed payments, the employer was given immunity from common law suits by employees. 77 Pa.Stat.Ann. §§ 481(a), 1403. … Clearly, these allegations should properly be aligned with those presented to our Supreme Court in Evans, supra. No allegation is made that Kelsey-Hayes intended to injure Higgins.

Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Graves

25 F.2d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 3, 1928

Did the evidence show these necessary facts so clearly as to leave no question for the jury? … He affirmed that point, with the following qualification: “We affirm that, and qualify it by stating that here, where the defense sets up suicide — if" the defense establishes suicide — proves suicide by the fair weight or

United States v. Anthony Stewart

452 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 2006

However, Becotte clearly expressed that Stewart’s medication regimen was crucial to his stability. … On appeal, Stewart argues that the District Court committed clear error because the evidence he presented at the hearing clearly and convincingly established that his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Price

501 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 4, 2007

Federal question jurisdiction exists when the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint establishes that “federal law creates the cause of action.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. … MetLife’s well-pleaded complaint establishes that its cause of action arises under ERISA.

Doe v. American Red Cross

14 F.3d 196 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 16, 1993

The American Red Cross and the American National Red Cross (hereinafter “Red Cross”) have been sued in state courts across the country by plaintiffs claiming that they contracted Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) … The Court did not qualify the application of its holding to a limited number of cases, nor did it exclude its application to cases previously removed and remanded.

Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator Ltd.

709 F.2d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 1983

Obviously then, section 1471(d) still qualifies that jurisdiction. We hold, however, that neither a forum selection clause ruling nor a forum non conveniens ruling is an abstention decision. … Mandamus is clearly not a substitute for an appeal. See NLRB v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 610 F.2d 99 , 104 (3d Cir.1979).

William T. Turner v. Schering-Plough Corporation

901 F.2d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 23, 1990

However, it was appealed to the district court, which concluded that the magistrate’s determination that the discovery period should not be reopened was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. … We do not rule out the possibility that an employee with a vested pension can establish a prima facie case by showing a pension reduction of such size that it might reasonably be considered to have motivated the discharge

Belitskus v. Pizzingrilli

343 F.3d 632 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 11, 2003

This conclusion is clearly supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bullock. … Indeed, plaintiffs’ claims clearly would have failed if brought as a facial challenge.

Thomas Affinito v. Roy Hendricks Attorney General of the State of New Jersey

366 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 4, 2004

As for legal conclusions, Williams instructs that a federal court may only grant habeas relief if the state adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently

Fuentes v. Reilly

590 F.2d 509 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 9, 1979

We note that the expert was cross-examined at length and that the plaintiff produced rebuttal evidence from her own highly qualified expert. … David Befeler, a well-qualified surgeon, who testified at some length on voir dire out of the jury's presence.

United States v. Allen Smith

751 F.3d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 9, 2014

Here, Norman fails to satisfy that standard because he has not established an error that was plain. … it easier for targets of identity theft to qualify as victims.

Jimmy JOHNSON, Petitioner v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

416 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2005

Second, it must establish that its litigation positions were substantially justified.”). … However, Johnson clearly prevailed on the main issue in this case' — his asylum claim. Cf.