Case law

Cecilia Dukes, Trustee Ad Litem of the Estate of Darryl Dukes, Deceased v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc. Germantown Hospital & Medical Center William W. Banks, M.D. Charles R. Drew Mental Health Center Edward B. Hosten, M.D. Serena Mary Visconti, Deceased, by Linda and Ronald Visconti, as Administrators of the Estate of Serena Mary Visconti, Deceased Linda Visconti Ronald Visconti, in Their Own Right v. U.S. Health Care, A/K/A the Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania/nj

57 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.

United States of America, Ex Rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante, P.A. v. The Prudential Insurance Company

944 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.

Ruth S. Weisenfeld v. Elliott J. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

463 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 12, 1972

services rendered by the individual; (3) The extent and nature of the activity performed by the individual before he allegedly retired as compared with that performed thereafter; (4) The presence or absence of an adequately qualified … Under the Secretary’s own regulations, however, this “before and after” comparison is clearly a subordinate consideration.

Tabu 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.”

Brisbin v. Superior Valve Co.

398 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 14, 2005

First, the decision finding not credible the testimony of Carter and Kilmer should be overruled only if clearly erroneous. … Again, this is an issue the Magistrate Judge is best qualified to resolve on remand. 4.

National 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.

Smith v. City of Allentown

589 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 22, 2009

She developed a performance plan that established a series of goals for the Recreation Bureau. … Guigere established performance goals for his Bureau, if not sooner.

T.R. E.M.R., on Behalf of Their Minor Child, N.R. v. Kingwood Township Board of Education, Hunterdon Co., New Jersey

205 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

Koppers 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.

Nadir v. Attorney General of the United States

361 F. App'x 372 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2010

To qualify for withholding of removal, Nadir was required to demonstrate that he “more likely than not” will face persecution if deported to Pakistan. See INS v. … Nadir has not demonstrated that any of the IJ’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous.

DiRuggiero v. Rodgers

743 F.2d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 1984

Three additional counts state claims under the privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution. … Because the children began to reside with Douglas on December 28, 1981, New Jersey clearly had become the home state by June 28, 1982.

Karim Bamba v. William F. Riley, Jr., Interim District Director of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

366 F.3d 195 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 27, 2004

At best, Bamba has established that the statutory scheme is ambiguous. … that he is "clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(A), the government has "the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that, in the case of an alien

Delaware & H. Co. v. Larnard

161 F. 520 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 5, 1908

Defendant’s testimony established the fact that the train was adequately manned with a conductor and brakeman. … While such invitation did not absolve those entering upon the railroad enclosure from the duty of taking reasonable precautions to be watchful as to possible danger from moving trains, it certainly qualifies that duty to

Alfred F. Marinelli v. City of Erie, Pennsylvania

216 F.3d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 2000

IV. 20 In order to state a cognizable cause of action under the ADA, a putative plaintiff must establish that he is a "qualified individual with a disability." See 42 U.S.C. S 12112 (a); Cleveland v. … Clearly our observation in Taylor did not pertain to the ADA.

Conoco, Inc. v. Skinner

970 F.2d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 16, 1992

-documented vessels from corporations that qualified as U.S. citizens. … We need not look to these factors, however, since Conoco has not established by “the clearest proof” that Congress intended the forfeiture provisions to be a criminal penalty.

Nadir v. Attorney General of the United States

361 F. App'x 372 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2010

To qualify for withholding of removal, Nadir was required to demonstrate that he “more likely than not” will face persecution if deported to Pakistan. See INS v. … Nadir has not demonstrated that any of the IJ’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous.

RKO-Stanley Warner Theatres, Inc. v. Mellon National Bank & Trust Co.

436 F.2d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 29, 1970

While the abutting fee owner may have power to impose frequent temporary obstructions on the public way in order to serve his own reasonable commercial needs, 23 the Pennsylvania decisions clearly establish that an abutting … Absent an express grant, RKO cannot therefore establish an easement to light and air.

CPA Nina Shahin v. State of DE

424 F. App'x 90 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 21, 2011

The District Court granted the State‟s motion, holding that the State was immune from suit under the ADEA and that Shahin had not established a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII.1 Shahin appealed. … To establish a prima facie case, Shahin must demonstrate that: 1) she belongs to a protected class; 2) she was qualified for the position; 3) she was subject to an adverse employment Shahin‟s claims; and the motion for

Chrysler Corp. v. Schlesinger

565 F.2d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 26, 1977

Such a disclosure, absent the regulation, would clearly conflict with the broad language of § 1905. … Clearly that is not the case with respect to the AAP’s, the CIR’s, or the CRR’s.

Helen L., Beverly D., Florence H., Ilene F., Idell S., and American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today ("a.d.a.p.t."), Idell S. v. Albert L. Didario, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of Norristown State Hospital, and Karen F. Snider, in Her Capacity as Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Karen F. Snider

46 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 24, 1995

Sec. 35.130 which is entitled "[g]eneral prohibitions against discrimination. " 29 Thus, the ADA and its attendant regulations clearly define unnecessary segregation as a form of illegal discrimination against the disabled … However, the veteran only qualified if he/she could establish "a physical or mental disorder which was not the result of [his/her] own willful misconduct." Id. at 535, 108 S.Ct. at 1372 .