Case law

Chen v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 20, 2007

Section 1101(a)(42)(B) establishes that forced abortion and sterilization constitute persecution. … Having established that a petitioner may qualify for asylum on the basis of a well-founded fear that his spouse may face forced abortion or sterilization, we now turn to the text of the BIA decision before us.

In re BH & P Inc.

949 F.2d 1300 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 1991

Thus, in reviewing the district court’s review of the bankruptcy court’s factual findings, we, like the district court, employ the “clearly erroneous” standard.... … The bankruptcy court found that Maggio failed to qualify as a “disinterested person” under each of these provisions.

Eve Atkinson v. Lafayette College Arthur J. Rothkopf, Esquire, Individually and as President of Lafayette College

460 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2006

This Court will assume, without deciding, that Atkinson established a prima facie case of discrimination. … Thus, neither this, nor any of her other arguments, overcomes the clearly unambiguous wording of her appointment letter. 5 .

United States v. Rose

365 F. App'x 384 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 18, 2010

The March 13 letter is obviously not an indictment and does not otherwise qualify as a formal charge. … Conclusion Because Rose has failed to establish that the government infringed upon his federal speedy trial guarantees, the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

Gaynor v. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation

183 F.2d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 14, 1950

It accordingly was sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the defendant’s driver and the motions for a directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. were, therefore, rightly denied. … The evidence would clearly have been admissible in corroboration of Mrs. Murdaugh’s alleged statement that her husband was drunk if evidence of that statement had been admitted.

Edwin H. Helfant v. George F. Kugler, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey

500 F.2d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 18, 1974

Mackell, 401 U.S. at 73, 91 S.Ct. at 768: “There may be unusual circumstances in which an injunction might be withheld because, despite a plaintiff’s strong claim for relief under the established standards, the injunctive … Sullivan had said something about immunity and I had already invoked the Fifth Amendment and I didn’t intend to testify about anything. I asked you in the car what are they going to give me immunity for? Q.

United States Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

644 F.2d 286 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 1981

The ALJ's opinion 10 in that case clearly stated that all four factors discussed above were to be analyzed in evaluating the interests of managerial and supervisory trainees. … Thus, although the students had no obligation to return to their former employers, and their former employers, in turn, did not have preferential hiring rights, the employers, in establishing this payment schedule, were clearly

Gavalik v. Continental Can Co.

812 F.2d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 1987

It had two aspects: (a) sheltering or keeping employed 70/75 qualified employees so that their employment was assured throughout their normal careers; and (b) preventing further employees from qualifying for 70/75 pensions … A finding to the contrary would be clearly erroneous.

Petruska v. Gannon University

462 F.3d 294 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 2006

In that respect, as the Tenth Circuit noted in Bryce , assertion of the ministerial exception — or, in that case, the "church autonomy doctrine" — is akin to a government official's defense of qualified immunity, which is … The Establishment Clause 37 Above and beyond its Free Exercise argument, Gannon contends that resolution of Petruska's claims would violate the Establishment Clause.

Daryoush Taha v. County of Bucks

862 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 6, 2017

They contend that CHRIA does not permit the imposition of punitive damages on government agencies because CHRIA does not contain a targeted waiver of sovereign immunity. … It therefore held that CHRIA includes a legislatively targeted waiver of sovereign immunity. See J.A. at 23a-24a.

James Gray, Under the Last Will and Testament of Hamilton Gray, Deceased v. United States

410 F.2d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 5, 1969

Each plan was established at a different time and each plan was administered separately in every respect. Neither plan at any time met the requirements of section 401(a) (relating to qualified plans). … Thus we do not need to reach today the issue of whether an established or consistent course of performance is suf-' ficient to qualify as a “contract or agreement,” as suggested in Example (4) of Treasury Regulations under

Ellyana Sukwanputra Yulius Sukwanputra v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General United States of America

434 F.3d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 19, 2006

As clearly indicated in 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(3), Congress did not authorize an opportunity for judicial review of determinations made by the executive branch regarding the timeliness of an asylum application. … Failing their constitutional arguments, petitioners next challenge the IJ’s determination that petitioner did not qualify for an exception to the one-year filing deadline for asylum applications.

Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union, Local No. 492 v. National Biscuit Co.

177 F.2d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 2, 1949

of a pension plan was an exercise of an inherent right of management” and “that the Pension Plan would be established, regardless of the wishes or approval” of the union. … In fact, the contracts affirmatively support normal construing of the term; for, besides juxtaposing the apparently antithetical word “rehiring” in the same Article, and besides qualifying “laid off” therein with the clause

Cecilia S. Jacobe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

578 F.2d 42 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 11, 1978

The statute clearly requires that three prerequisites be met in order to be eligible for an adjustment of status. … The immediate relatives specified in this subsection who are otherwise qualified for admission as immigrants shall be admitted as such, without regard to the numerical limitations in this chapter.” .

Guy Drake, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. E. I. Dupont Denemours & Co., Inc., Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Levingston Shipbuilding Company, Third Party

432 F.2d 276 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 28, 1971

Several days elapsed while a repair procedure was established, and while Coast Guard approval of the method of repair was sought and approved. … In fact, of the numerous welders employed in the Levingston yard, Drake was one of only two welders who were qualified to do this job.

Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. School Board, Hermitage School District

599 F.2d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 1, 1979

After careful review of the record, we conclude that this finding was not clearly erroneous under the standard of F.R.Civ.P. 52(a). … Adams, pending the location of a qualified maintenance person,” 776a. Mrs.

Lavira v. Atty Gen USA

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. … An affidavit by Michelle Karshan was part of the record before the IJ in Matter of J-F-. 11 Id. 31  The Karshan expert report clearly stated that Lavira would have little or

Sejid Smriko v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

387 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 26, 2004

De Leon-Reynoso clearly controls this case. We accordingly reject Smriko’s insistence that his § 3925(a) conviction was not for a “crime involving moral turpitude.” 3 IV. … This section, permitting refugees to obtain LPR status, speaks only of refugees who qualify being “regarded as lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence [after one year],” id. § 1159(a)(2) (emphasis added

United States v. Walter v. Cross, A/K/A Bobo, in No. 96-3239. Jules C. Melograne, in No. 96-3240. Nunzio Melograne, in No. 96-3241

128 F.3d 145 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 21, 1997

Because the fundamental due process right of a defendant in a criminal case to an impartial tribunal is so well established, and because that right is so clearly subverted by an agreement of this kind, we reject the defendants … This circuit has also clearly acknowledged the fundamental right to a fair and unbiased adjudication of guilt.

White v. Beal

555 F.2d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 5, 1977

We affirm. 2 The plaintiff class is composed of individuals generally qualifying for benefits under Pennsylvania's medical assistance program established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 , et … A person who cannot see clearly beyond a short distance from his face because of a refractive error may not be given eyeglasses under the Pennsylvania plan, but a person with only slightly impaired vision, caused by pathology