Case law

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. .

United States v. Anthony Provenzano, Stephen Andretta, and Thomas Andretta

620 F.2d 985 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 8, 1980

(b) In making such determination the chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide, shall deem any person qualified to serve on grand and petit juries in the district court … Stephen Andretta Issue: Immunized Testimony Stephen Andretta was immunized before a grand jury in the Eastern District of Michigan on December 10, 1975 and was compelled to testify.

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.

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.

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.

Cheri v. Rolm Company

201 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

The district court granted Defendant partial summary judgment, ruling that the short-term plan was not a qualified plan under ERISA and dismissing all claims arising out of that plan. See DiFederico v. Rolm Co., No. … Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298, 1302 (3d Cir. 1972)). 16 Plaintiff complains that the district court's findings number 18, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38, 42, and 44 are clearly erroneous.

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.

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 plaintiff's 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."

Smith v. Onyx Oil & Chemical Co.

218 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 3, 1955

The defendant has, in the parlance of the criminal courts, thrown the book at the plaintiff in an effort to establish a defense to his claim. We agree with the district judge that none of the alleged defenses are valid. … On the other hand, they can maintain complete immunity from all obligation, even though they have expressed agreement orally or informally upon every detail of a complex transaction.

Gertrude W. Abramson v. William Paterson College of New Jersey

260 F.3d 265 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 2001

Importantly, we qualified that statement with the following footnote: [The plaintiff need not] cast doubt on each proffered reason in a vacuum. … We hold that Abramson’s termination clearly fulfills the second prong of the prima facie case for a retaliation claim.

R.H. Ashenbaugh v. Crucible Inc. 1975 Salaried Retirement Plan

854 F.2d 1516 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 1988

Thus, if the Thirty-Year Benefit were actually to come within ERISA's definition of "accrued benefit", the Plan would not qualify. … This is obviously a skewed interpretation of a plan clearly intended to meet the requirements of ERISA and the Code.

William Hayes v. WalMart Stores Inc

725 F.3d 349 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2013

Since plaintiff did not fulfill this burden, there was no basis to infer that the class is sufficiently numerous to qualify for class action treatment. … “It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant—not to others—which justifies judicial intervention.” McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151, 162 (1914).

Moffatt Enterprises, Inc. v. Borden Inc.

807 F.2d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 22, 1986

To the contrary, the plaintiffs’ complaint, besides averring damages to Moffatt Enterprises, Inc., clearly pleads causes of action running to the Moffatts individually. … After nearly two years of discovery — the fruits of which fill a seven-volume appendix running over 1200 pages — the plaintiffs in this case have failed to make a showing sufficient to establish — either clearly and convincingly

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.

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

Fleming v. A. B. Kirschbaum Co.

124 F.2d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 2, 1942

The phrase “No employer” certainly may not logically be qualified as meaning “no employer who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” which is the construction urged by the defendant. … The emphasis in both sections is clearly placed upon the nature of the employee’s work.

Inmates Allegheny v. Wecht

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 1996

The actual holding in Torcasio was that, at the time of the alleged discrimination, it was not clearly established that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act apply to state prisons, and, consequently, the defendant prison officials … were entitled to qualified immunity under these statutes.

United States v. Curtis Reynolds, William Parran. Appeal of William Parran

715 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 18, 1983

Similarly, testimony recounting the ábove statement would qualify as non-hearsay if offered on the issue as to whether the declarant was capable of speaking English. … That is, statements containing express assertions may also contain implied assertions qualifying as hearsay and susceptible to hearsay objections.

Saidou Dia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

353 F.3d 228 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 2003

Background The Supreme Court has “ ‘long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.’ ” Fiallo … Dia explained that the smuggler told him a story to present to the immigration officials in the U.S., which he clearly did.

Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

717 F.3d 141 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 21, 2013

“To demonstrate an abuse of discretion, [an appellant] must show that the District Court‟s decision was arbitrary, fanciful or clearly unreasonable.” Moyer v. … Spelling-Goldberg Prods., 603 P.2d 454, 457 n.6 (Cal. 1979) (“Such statements establish that this is not a case in which the use is wholly unrelated to the individual. . . .