Case law

David Jerri, Jr. v. Frederick Harran

625 F. App'x 574 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 10, 2015

qualified immunity, which only “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The law governing the narrow issue before us—whether, assuming all the other elements of a First Amendment claim are satisfied, speech made as a citizen is protected—is clearly established, hence rendering qualified immunity

Daniel C. Motley v. New Jersey State Police the State Troopers Fraternal Association of New Jersey

196 F.3d 160 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 1, 1999

Motley has failed to provide such a sufficient explanation, even taking into account the different standards used in his disability hearing and under the ADA. 17 To establish that he was a "qualified individual with a disability … How can we, now, after Cleveland, deny this opportunity which is clearly mandated?

Petition of the United States of America and Mathiasen's Tanker Industries, Inc., for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability as Owners of the U.S.N.S. Mission San Francisco, United States of America, in No. 15294. Mathiasen's Tanker Industries, Inc., in No. 15281

367 F.2d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1966

and was proceeding in ballast on another mission as directed by the Navy when the collision occurred. 4 Relying on these facts, the claimants here argue that Mathiasen was such a "charterer or owner pro hac vice" as under established … The short answer is that the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the Jones Act remedy is exclusive and, when applicable, bars relief against the same defendant under a state wrongful death statute. Gillespie v.

Cai Luan Chen v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

381 F.3d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

In other words, the Ma Court concluded that the BIA’s interpretation of § 1101(a)(42) failed step two of Chevron because it was clearly contrary to Congress’s intent, or, as the Ma Court put it, Congress’s “purpose and policies … (“Congress chose not to define the word ‘persecution’ ... because the meaning of the word was understood to be well established by administrative and court precedents.”).

United States v. Raymond Burczyk, and Third Party v. Daniel W. Howard, Village of Waterford, State of Wisconsin, Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations, Third Party

556 F.2d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 2, 1977

Priority established. … Even a clearly established negligence may not of itself be a sufficient ground for refusing relief, if it appears that the other party has not been prejudiced thereby.' " Id

Hagar v. Elmslie

107 F. 511 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 4, 1901

The court was clearly right in its determination in this regard. … Their testimony was in the nature of that of experts not fully qualified to testify in the particular case.

Jamar Wilson v. Byanahak Jin

698 F. App'x 667 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 2017

They are also immune from “intentional tort claims.” La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 6 expertise.” Wilson claims that Dr. … As previously stated, to establish an Eighth Amendment violation, Wilson must show “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.

Catherine Natsu Lanning Altovise Love Belinda Kelly Dodson Denise Dougherty Lynne Zirilli v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Septa) (d.c. Civil No. 97-Cv-00593) United States of America v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (d.c. Civil No. 97-Cv-01161) Catherine Natsu Lanning, Altovise Love, Belinda Kelly Dodson, Denise Doughtery and Lynne Zirilli, in No. 98-1644 United States of America, in No. 98-1755

181 F.3d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 1999

The findings of fact on job needs with respect to aerobic capacity are not clearly erroneous. … See Qualifying Standards (updated Oct. 15, 1998). http://www.indiana.edu/#A1#preschal/qualifying.html>.

Romeo v. Youngberg

644 F.2d 147 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 18, 1981

IX. 54 In order to appreciate the full problem posed by this case, it is important to note that the Supreme Court has recognized a common law of qualified immunity protecting officials and employees from civil liability for … Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 446 F.Supp. 1295, 1324 (E.D.Pa.1977) aff'd and modified, 612 F.2d 84 (3d Cir. 1979) 1 The existence of a qualified immunity defense is not raised on this appeal.

14 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1210, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7506 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Communications Workers of America Afl-Cio (Cwa) (Intervening Defendants), Telephone Coordinating Council, Tcc-1 (National Bell Council), Intervening Appeal of Communications Workers of America, in No. 76-2217. Appeal of the Telephone Coordinating Council, Tcc-1, Ibew, in No. 76-2281. Appeal of Alliance of Independent Telephone Unions, in No. 76-2285

556 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 22, 1977

The supplemental order provides that unmet targets shall be carried forward in certain establishments and job classifications. … Management determines the employee best qualified in its judgment, but seniority decides the issue where two employees are considered by management to be equally qualified.

Robert D. Shaner, Jr. v. Synthes (Usa)

204 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 2, 2000

Only if conduct which is extreme or clearly outrageous is established will a claim be proven.” Id. 720 A.2d at 753-54 . … We will assume that conduct which is intended to cause a worsening of a disabled person’s physical symptoms may qualify as “extreme or clearly outrageous.”

Indian Brand Farms, Inc. v. Novartis Crop Protection Inc.

617 F.3d 207 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 10, 2010

It is equally unquestionable, though, that the brochure qualifies as “all other written, printed, or graphic matter.” … The contents of a label must show clearly and prominently the following: ...

Brotherhood Of Railroad Trainmen v. Railroad Retirement Board

410 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 6, 1969

annuities for qualified retiring railroaders. 45 U.S.C. 228. … Title I of the Bill as passed (P.L. 89-699) provided for the establishment of the supplemental annuities program.

Leroy Mcknight v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

583 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 1978

Pape "insofar as it holds that local governments are wholly immune from suit under § 1983." Monnell v. … Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 , 91 S.Ct. 507 , 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971), was qualified in Paul v.

Roman v. Jeffes

904 F.2d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 1990

“Within the former category fall those cases in which either it is readily apparent that the plaintiffs complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or that the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity from suit; within the … latter are those cases describing scenarios clearly removed from reality.”

United States v. Starusko, John

729 F.2d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 5, 1984

Thus, evidence that could be used to impeach Logan’s credibility, would clearly be exculpatory. … But the possibility that the government may be immunized from ordinary contempt procedures does not mean that the government or its authorized agents — here, the United States Attorney and his assistants — are privileged

Anthony N. Matteo v. Superintendent, Sci Albion the District Attorney of the County of Chester the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania

171 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 24, 1999

But we depart from the First Circuit in our understanding of what constitutes an "unreasonable application" of clearly established federal law. … Therefore, we hold the state court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. C.

Jayne G. Nathanson v. The Medical College of Pennsylvania

926 F.2d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 4, 1991

But even assuming that the record is sufficient to establish that Nathanson made this request, I believe that Nathan-son nevertheless failed to establish that MCP acted unreasonably because she did not show that she could … In light of this testimony, MCP’s failure to attempt to obtain a special chair during this period was clearly reasonable and did not violate Section 504. 2 2. Dismissal to Reinstatement.

Barbara M. Owen and Natalie S. Owen, by and Through Their Guardian Ad Litem, Vallerie Owen, and Vallerie Owen, Individually v. The United States of America, Defendant/third-Party and Cross-Appellee v. Bruce Church, Inc., Third-Party Defendant/counterclaimant/appellee and Cross-Appellant

713 F.2d 1461 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1983

We will reverse this finding only upon a showing that it was clearly erroneous because of lack of evidentiary support or erroneous application of law. Power v. … Instead, BCI and the Owen heirs bargained over the price of BCI's § 877(b) immunity from the Government's indemnity suit.

R Ball for R Ball III by Appt v. Commissioner of IRS

742 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 12, 2014

The Court reasoned that Gitlitz and Farley only established that the nature of “discharge of indebtedness” as income is not affected by an exclusion elsewhere in the Code. See id. … If the recipient corporation does not continue qualified with respect to the ownership of stock of the liquidating corporation and if the failure to continue qualified occurs at any time prior to the completion