Case law

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.”

Coraggioso v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 2004

However, the BIA’s (and hence the IJ’s) interpretation of the INA is subject to established principles of deference. INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424-25 (1999). … The equities of the situation clearly give us pause. Having lived in the United States since the age of four, Coraggioso is more truly an American than an Italian. He is neither a criminal nor a burden on society.

Boyanowski v. Capital Area Intermediate Unit

215 F.3d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 2000

He also won a verdict against John Nagle, who had been executive director of the CAIU, but the District Court set it aside on qualified immunity grounds. Mr. … On post-trial motions, the District Court ruled that Nagle was entitled to qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim, and it set aside the verdict and damages against him.

Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Windall

51 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 1995

The district court stayed the Air Force’s motion for summary judgment on PIRG’s claim for civil penalties on the defense of sovereign immunity pending decision in Department of Energy v. … We review the district court’s market definition to determine whether it is clearly erroneous. See Black Grievance Comm., 802 F.2d at 662 .

Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. The Republic Of The Philippines

951 F.2d 1414 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 19, 1991

Id. at 1082 . 79 Unlike the instant case, Doe involved an inadvertent disclosure to a party who, while no longer sharing common interests with Doe, was not clearly an adversary. … from discovery and a qualified evidentiary privilege.

Chavarria v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 3, 2006

Thus, an alien may demonstrate either that he qualifies for asylum because of past persecution or because he fears future persecution if returned to his native country. … Chavarria’s fear, if well- founded, is clearly on account of an imputed political opinion.

Pennsylvania v. Brown

392 F.2d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 7, 1968

The record does show clearly that one of the court trustees testified that he was telephoned by one of the Orphans’ Court judges prior to the appointments order being filed and told that the court had appointed its own trustees … It is inconceivable that those City Trustees would not have with goodwill opened the College to all qualified children. Given everything we know of Mr.

Liotta v. Borough of Springdale

985 F.2d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 1993

While the record does not clearly so indicate, the appellees assert, and Liotta does not deny, that Liotta was free to call additional witnesses. … As a member of Borough Council for the past three and one-half years, I believe that I am qualified to judge your performance. Your tenure was always satisfactory.

Sandra Cortez v. Trans Union

617 F.3d 688 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 13, 2010

Remittitur “[T]he remittitur is well established as a device employed when the trial judge finds that a decision of the jury is clearly unsupported and/or excessive.” Spence v. … The fact that Trans Union’s actions rest upon a legal conclusion does not immunize it from liability for reckless conduct under the FCRA.

Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Regional Board of Education

307 F.3d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 3, 2002

But the possibility that the policy may become unconstitutional is clearly an undesirable feature. … As we discuss, even in the public school context, mere offensiveness does not qualify as "disruptive” speech. .

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Parry Bellott

495 F.2d 1393 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 27, 1974

Reversing, Justice Harlan, for a unanimous court wrote: “We are unable to assent to the doctrine that in a prosecution for murder, the defense being insanity and the fact of the killing with a deadly weapon being clearly … upon the accused to establish his innocence or to disprove the facts necessary to establish the crime for which he is indicted.

Shaev v. Saper

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 21, 2003

Shaev’s complaint that the 2000 amendment to the Plan was established too late to qualify for a deduction is well made. … The Regulations require that a qualified performance goal be established not later than the ninetieth day of the performance period or before twenty-five percent of the performance period has elapsed.

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.

Threadgill v. Armstrong World Industries

928 F.2d 1366 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 1991

Delaware law also requires that the " 'but for' nexus between asbestos exposure and the injury claimed be established through medical testimony." Lee v. A.C. & S. … Furthermore, given that the jury verdict did not clearly depend upon a finding of lack of causation, the Fund's argument that the conspiracy claim was doomed, even without the Sumner Simpson documents, is unpersuasive.

Ayuk Ako Obale v. Attorney General of the United States.

453 F.3d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 2006

The threshold for establishing eligibility for withholding of removal is higher than that for establishing entitlement to asylum and requires the alien to demonstrate a “clear probability” that, upon removal to the country … An applicant who does not qualify for asylum necessarily does not qualify for withholding of removal. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556 , 561 n. 4 (3d Cir.2004).

Alfred D. Schiaffo, in No. 72-2168 v. Henry Helstoski, in No. 72-2167

492 F.2d 413 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 21, 1974

Although the limits of the immunity afforded congressmen by the Speech or Debate Clause are not clearly defined by judicial precedent, 10 in United States v. … The mailing under the frank of the parchment copy of the Declaration of Independence may qualify under § 3210(2). .

Pascack Valley Hosp v. Local 464A UFCW

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 2004

Instead, the Description, entitled “How Benefits Will Plan argues that “[t]he MagNet contract Be Paid,” provides: “If you qualify … If it cannot, in and of itself, establish an could not, then removal was improper, assignment of their claims.

Eugene Joseph Theriot, Cross v. Bay Drilling Corporation, Defendant-Third Party Cross and Oilfield Services of Louisiana, Inc., Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Intervenor-Appellee v. Houston Oil & Minerals Corporation, Third Party

783 F.2d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 20, 1986

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Theriot's prior work history. 16 Theriot argues that the admitted invoices and delivery tickets were hearsay and not properly qualified to be admitted … Theriot asserts that the documents were not authenticated, and that the documents were admitted prior to establishing the necessary foundation.

Asplundh Manufacturing Division v. Benton Harbor Engineering

57 F.3d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 20, 1995

In concluding that the district court had improperly held the SAA inapplicable to the case, we noted that the plaintiff, who had offered testimony relevant to establishing SAA violations, was qualified to testify by virtue … When the trial court makes Rule 104(a) findings of historical fact ... we review by the clearly erroneous standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52.

We, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

174 F.3d 322 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 1, 1999

It likens Noerr-Pennington immunity to the absolute and qualified immunity enjoyed by public officials, the denial of which is immediately appealable under that doctrine. See Mitchell v. … Forsythe that an "essential attribute" of qualified immunity is "an entitlement not to stand trial under certain circumstances," and thus qualified immunity entails "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability