Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,730 results
0.58s
St. Francis Medical Center v. Sullivan
962 F.2d 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 24, 1992
The non-qualifying patients in the rehabilitation unit in 1985 were nevertheless *1113 included in the Medical Center’s 1985 base year cost report. … Given the language of the statute and the regulations, the Medical Center’s request for a hearing before the Board of its 1985 base year cost report fails to “adhere to the administrative procedure which Congress has established
Cited 2 timesPublishedUnited States v. Robert David Villard
885 F.2d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 1989
Clearly tell that it was an outdoor setting. And clearly identified him from head to toe. It was a full page photograph. 700 F.Supp. at 805-06 . … He had a smile on his face, and protruding clearly from one leg of the shorts was an erection.
Cited 123 timesPublishedMarie Gillispie v. Regionalcare Hospital Partners
892 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 12, 2018
Congress clearly intended to include the transmission of information under the protective umbrella of a “report.” … It is uncontested that E.R.’s discharge could have, but did not, result in injury. 70 Gillispie argues E.R.’s discharge does not qualify as an “incident” because it did require the delivery of additional health care.
Cited 40 timesPublishedUGI Sunbury LLC v. Permanent Easement for 1.7575
949 F.3d 825 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 11, 2020
Indeed, that qualified, tentative endorsement of Shearer’s theory was the only factual analysis supporting the valuation awards. … Above all, it is the speculative and subjective nature of this testimony that severs the necessary relationship to “methods which have been established to be reliable.” In re Paoli, 35 F.3d at 742 n.8.
Cited 114 timesPublishedPetition of Joseph Ernst for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
294 F.2d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 1961
Clearly, his appointment was a proper discharge of the court’s initial responsibility to assign competent and responsible counsel. Petitioner now criticizes various actions and omissions of defense counsel at the trial. … In his effort to establish and maintain this basic position counsel took several steps which petitioner now views as depriving him of the kind of defense to which he was entitled.
Cited 67 timesPublished372 F. App'x 237 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 2010
In his motion, Banks argued that, because he is a Lakota Sioux Indian, he is subject exclusively to the “Laws of the Tribe,” and “therefore is immune from suit.” (Dist.Ct. No. 312.) … Because Banks was thus clearly charged with “offenses against the laws of the United States,” there can be no question that the District Court had jurisdiction over Banks’s case. See, e.g., United States v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedMaurice Lavira v. Attorney General of the United States
478 F.3d 158 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 26, 2007
We firmly established specific intent as the appropriate standard and distinguished as dictum the language in Zubeda v. … There is no dispute he has the virus that causes an incurable auto-immune disease. There is no dispute that medical care is wholly inadequate if not completely absent in the facility.
Overruled on other grounds by Pierre v. Attorney General of United States, 528 F.3d 180 (2008)Cited 52 timesPublished57 F.3d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 1995
Wisniewski as a competent and qualified participating obstetrician/gynecologist. … Sec. 2520.102-3(l ) (SPD must include "a statement clearly identifying circumstances which may result in disqualification, ineligibility, or denial, loss, forfeiture or suspension of any benefits"); 29 C.F.R.
Cited 215 timesPublished944 F.2d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 10, 1991
In passing the Amendments, Congress clearly intended to increase the range of permissible relators. B. … The original source language is clearly evocative of the failed 1943 Senate bill.
Cited 202 timesPublishedJayeola Amos v. Attorney General United States of America
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2025
Att’y Gen., 638 F.3d 223, 229 n.1 (3d Cir. 2011). 15 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Guerrero-Lasprilla, 589 U.S. at 340. 9 These are clearly questions of law that we have jurisdiction … ”94 to qualifying family members.
Cited 0 timesPublishedKaren Overall and Arthur Dunham v. University of Pennsylvania Gail Smith
412 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 27, 2005
Smith charged the Committee with the *495 task of picking the best qualified candidate from all the applicants. App. at 386, 483 (Dr. … Overall’s claims was clearly quasi-judicial in character. Therefore, the statements made by Dr. Smith during the grievance proceedings are absolutely privileged. Overall, 2003 WL 23095953 at *9.
Cited 39 timesPublishedSun Wen Chen, Wen Hui Gao v. Attorney General of the United States
491 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 20, 2007
So drafted, an actual victim of persecution under a coercive population control program, as well as his/her spouse, would qualify for relief under the statute. … The House Report therefore expresses a congressional intent to restrict asylum to the “person” who undergoes the coercive procedure just as clearly as the text of the statute.
Overruled on other grounds by Guang Lin-Zheng v. Attorney General of the United States, 557 F.3d 147 (2009)Cited 44 timesPublishedNoorily v. Thomas & Betts Corp.
188 F.3d 153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 25, 1999
We first address T & B’s contention that its determination to deny the plaintiffs severance benefits was a “business decision” immune from the standards that section 404 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1104 , establishes for fiduciaries … We carefully have examined plaintiffs’ cross-appeal with respect to the sanctions and find that it is clearly without merit.
Cited 18 timesPublishedTabu McClure v. Commissioner Jeffrey Haste
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 8, 2020
Finally, the Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because, even if there was an Eighth Amendment violation, the right at play was not clearly established. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNational Labor Relations Board v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc.
606 F.2d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 1979
Although Pyle argues that the record does not establish that this driver was otherwise “qualified,” the record does show that the owner of the truck stated that he was qualified and that Pyle’s rejection was not based on … The two incidents just described clearly show that Pyle has retained the “right of control” over its drivers’ conduct.
Cited 19 timesPublishedSmith v. Township of East Greenwich
344 F. App'x 740 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 2009
Failure to Promote The District Court found Smith had established the minimal requirements of a prima facie case of discrimination because she had demonstrated that she was sufficiently qualified to be considered for the … Goess testified that he modified the original report to add that the jacket may have been lost or misplaced and clearly noted on the report that he was responsible for making the additional notation.
Cited 1 timesPublished590 F.2d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 1979
to establish the immediacy, reality and adversity of an “actual controversy.” … By balancing the interests of each plan, they may be able to construct terms which are fair and equitable for both plans; if so, they may qualify for a § 408 exemption.
Cited 85 timesPublished205 F.3d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 9, 2000
However, we must accept the District Court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See Oberti v. Board of Educ. of Borough of Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204, 1220 (3d Cir.1993). II. … The IDEA also contains a “mainstreaming” component, which requires states to establish “procedures to assure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children ... are educated with children who are not handicapped
Cited 113 timesPublishedKoppers Company, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
767 F.2d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 8, 1985
In 1977, when Congress added section 301(g), it clearly viewed this section as a corollary to section 301(c). … Instead, it admonished EPA to establish an expeditious 301(g) process. Clearly, the more complex the issues, the less expeditious the process would become.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna