Case law

Coleen Remp v. Alcon Laboratories Inc

701 F. App'x 103 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

Discrimination Claims To resolve complaints brought pursuant to Title VII or the ADEA, we use the burden shifting test established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … However, “An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.”

Alessi ex rel. Alessi v. Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare

893 F.2d 1444 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 1990

The reason is simple enough: DPW concedes Alessi’s entitlement to free treatment *1456 under section 4201 of the MH/MR Act, but argues that that entitlement is qualified by the availability of funds. … More adjudicative “procedure,” as that term is commonly understood, would clearly be pointless.

June Mills Butler v. United States of America, Defendant-Third Party v. Hancock County, Ms, Third Party Robert C. Price, Cross-Appellees v. United States of America, Defendant-Third Party Cross v. Hancock County, Ms, Third Party Defendant-Cross-Appellee. Augusta Ida Verrett, Cross-Appellees v. United States of America, Defendant-Third Party Cross v. Hancock County, Ms, Third Party Cross-Appellee

726 F.2d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 12, 1984

Governmental immunity from suit is maintained by 28 U.S.C. … The court stated that these actions were "operational" in nature and thus did not enjoy immunity.

Robert Francis v. Janet Reno, Attorney General and Doris Meissner, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service

269 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 30, 2001

He argues that the offense is a misdemeanor under Pennsylvania law and therefore cannot qualify as a felony for purposes of the INA. … The court found that the government must establish recklessness or criminal negligence. Id.

Alderney Dairy Company, Inc. v. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc., and National Industries, Inc

643 F.2d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 1981

Hutnik immunizes Old Alderney from liability for its representation to New Alderney that its obligations under the Pension Plan had been fulfilled. To the contrary, Hurd v. … Hutnik established that an obligation remained outstanding.

Hurklee Carey v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Company, Inc., Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross v. Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Cross

455 F.2d 1192 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 1972

We affirm. 2 At trial Carey introduced evidence tending to establish the following sequence of events. … We find this assignment of error to be without merit. 7 Ryan's final argument on this appeal is to the effect that the jury's verdict was clearly excessive and that a remittitur should be granted.

Troy Ltd. v. Renna

727 F.2d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 30, 1984

The Tenancy Act is clearly not a taking of property under the Loretto standard of permanency. … The Court clearly assumed that the creation of the statutory tenancy for private parties was not a taking for public use. 15 Statutory tenancy laws protecting holdover tenants are not takings, but merely regulations of the

Badewa v. Attorney General of the United States

252 F. App'x 473 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 30, 2007

Moreover, under the appropriate standard of review, “[f]actual findings are clearly erroneous if the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.” United States v. … He then cites the general mistreatment of detainees by Nigerian authorities to establish the probability of torture.

Versa Products Company, Inc. v. Bifold Company (Manufacturing) Ltd.

50 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 15, 1995

The purchasers and users of the valves are qualified, knowledgeable persons who comprehend the installation and use of the valves. … The district court was technically correct in stating that “[t]he fact that the source of the product is clearly designated on the product-does not establish that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion

Hogan v. Zletz

388 F.2d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 4, 1968

D.Mich.1960), appeal dismissed 310 F.2d 373 (6 Cir. 1962), cited with approval by the Court in Gladrow clearly recognizes the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. … Nobile, 133 U.S.P.Q. 178 (W.D.Mich.1962), decided by the same judge who wrote the opinion in Shull, qualifies Shull by expressly holding that discovery is not available.

C. R. Grove v. Dun & Bradstreet

438 F.2d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 15, 1971

The standard by which this conduct is to be judged is indeed critical to plaintiff's action: clearly no test requiring "actual malice" can be satisfied by these operative facts. 2 4 New York Times v. … Credit ceilings of $5,000 were established, with 60, or, in some cases, only 30 days to remit. Glen Gery alone provided approximately 40% of plaintiff's brick supply.

James Q. Horne, Jr. v. Adolph Coors Company R. S. Woods, Inc. And Kingston Wine and Liquor Shop, Inc

684 F.2d 255 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 1982

Pennsylvania’s interest in protecting its residents owning intellectual property from harm that was clearly and specifically foreseeable justified a Pennsylvania forum’s exercise of in personam jurisdiction. … Rather, our holding deals with how the facts needed to show those “minimum contacts” can be established when a defendant fails to comply with court-ordered discovery.

Vermont Marble Co. v. National Surety Co.

213 F. 429 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 1914

The act read as a whole clearly indicates the legislative purpose to protect subcontractors for material and labor on government work, and this intent, gathered from the various provisions of the act itself, is as clearly … The long-established principles applicable to the construction and interpretation of statutes, require that we should seek to harmonize and not bring into conflict their various provisions.

United States v. Fisher, Herbert K., United States of America v. Bloom, Herman

871 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 31, 1989

There is nothing in the record to establish that the prosecutor intended to mislead the grand jury in this way. Similarly, Mr. … The district court also found a violation of Rule 6(d) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a violation of 18 U.S.C., §§ 6002 and 6003 by the prosecutions’s use of "pocket immunity” (immunity granted to a witness by the government

United States Steel Corporation, Petitioner v. Occupational Safety And Health Review Commission

537 F.2d 780 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1976

Brickman, was unworthy of credence as against USS's better-qualified witnesses. … Moreover, for USS's argument to have logical valicity, a critical factual predicate had to be established, to-wit, that there was no safe and practical method of erecting the nets without undue danger to the net crews.

United States v. Andrew John Shomock

462 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 20, 1972

Congress seems rather carefully to have confined the unconditional right created by the statute to immunity from combatant training and service. … “The Government argues for an interpretation identical in effect with the unambiguous rule hypothecated above, which, we have said, would clearly be a reasonable timeliness rule, consistent with the conscientious objector

Bazley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

155 F.2d 237 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 16, 1946

Indeed, such determinations seem to fall clearly within the Dobson rule. Cf. John Kelley Co. v. Commissioner (Talbot Mills v. Commissioner), 66 S.Ct. 299 . … Helvering, is one not established by that decision, the statute, nor the regulations.

Lusingo v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 19, 2005

Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”), the Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to an alien who qualifies as a “refugee.” See 8 U.S. C. § 1158(b)(1). … An alien qualifies as a “refugee” by establishing either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution because of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion

Mike Valo v. Monessen Southwestern Railway Company, a Corporation

407 F.2d 1400 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 12, 1969

The railroad undertook the training program and assigned qualified men to the “hot run”. … We believe that on the facts most favorable to plaintiff it is clearly established that he was not an employee of the Pennsylvania Railroad * *

Moran v. Clarke

296 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 5, 2002

Id. at 305 , 98 S.Ct. 2733 . 28 The record on appeal does not clearly set forth the race of the various parties and participants, including the police officers who were more clearly involved in the striking of Mr. … The district court did not reach the defendants' qualified immunity defense.