Case law

Robert Spruill v. Frank Gillis Goolier, C.O. McGlaughlin M.D. Brown, P.A

372 F.3d 218 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 18, 2004

The extreme pain and real possibility of permanent injury could qualify Spruill’s condition as a serious medical need. … Gooler captions this issue as a qualified immunity defense, which it is not.

United States Ex Rel. Elliott v. Hendricks, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare

213 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 2, 1954

The discussion of habeas corpus in Blackstone 6 shows clearly that author’s conception of the writ is not a suit against the crown. … The district judge put the questions clearly in the following language: “The relator is asking for a hearing in order to establish (1) that Dr.

United States v. John Pozsgai, Gizella Pozsgai, Mercer Wrecking & Recycling Corporation, J. Vinch & Sons, Inc. John Pozsgai and Gizella Pozsgai

999 F.2d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 10, 1993

The Environmental Protection Agency implemented that strategy in part by establishing national effluent standards. … We review these factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Assn. Local 19 v. 2300 Group, Inc., 949 F.2d at 1278.

Robison v. Canterbury Village, Inc.

848 F.2d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 3, 1988

The district court then established timetables for motions and responses, and stayed discovery until it decided the issue of its jurisdiction. … Because no claim can be maintained under section 1986 unless a cause of action has been established under section 1985, see Rogin v.

Steven Addlespurger v. Tom Corbett

461 F. App'x 82 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2012

Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, we may summarily dispose of an appeal when it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented by the appeal. … He too is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity under these circumstances.

Cutaiar v. Marshall

590 F.2d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 1979

erroneous, that the effect was sufficient 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.

Victor Frutis Salmoran v. Attorney General United States

909 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 26, 2018

For the reasons below, we hold that a conviction under section 2C:24-4(b)(5)(b) of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated for possession of child pornography qualifies as a crime of child abuse, but does not qualify as an … Yates, 847 F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 2017) (“The state crime at issue clearly does apply more broadly than the federally defined offense.

Nedd v. United Mine Workers Of America

556 F.2d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 1977

When one in a fiduciary relationship asserts a set-off to a liability for participating in a breach of trust, the burden, it seems to us, should be on him to establish that the transaction on which he relies properly qualifies … employer real property or qualifying employer securities (as defined in section 1107(d)(4) and (5) of this title).

United States v. Anthony Dell'aquilla

150 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 1998

Sandalwood clearly exercised sufficient control over the development of the property to qualify as an "operator." See generally, B & W Inv. … Similarly, although Sandalwood clearly functioned as an operator, this record also fails to establish how long Sandalwood acted in that capacity. 20 In United States v.

U. S. Industries, Inc., a Corporation, and Diversacon Industries, Inc., a Corporation v. F. Browne Gregg

540 F.2d 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 1976

Considering the factors that might properly qualify as affiliating circumstances to support jurisdiction, Hanson v. … This argument is interesting, but is clearly unsound under settled principles of law.

United States v. John W. Downing

753 F.2d 1224 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 25, 1985

Without the eyewitness identifications, however, the government’s case against appellant clearly would have been insufficient to survive a motion for judgment of acquittal. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 29. . … In fairness we note that, because the holdings in most of these cases rest on more than one ground, the cases themselves do not clearly indicate whether Rule 702 provides a sufficient ground for excluding the evidence.

Porphire Lanasse v. Travelers Insurance Company, the California Company, Defendant-Third Party v. Royal Insurance Company, Excess-Surplus Lines, Inc., And/or Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Third Party

450 F.2d 580 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 1972

of the English language to find that somehow the crane operator was "indirectly" engaged in the "operation" of Bo-Truc No. 5, or vice versa, we still could not read the charter clause to blanket Chevron with the claimed immunity … (Emphasis added) Needless to say, this standard-form scenario was written, produced and directed by Chevron on a printed form of charter. 5 The District Court's findings establish that the pallets were not in a position to

Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission v. Hon. Hazel O'leary, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of Energy

93 F.3d 103 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

We therefore turn to the legislative history and purpose of the statute to determine whether they clearly reveal a contrary intent. … States have the duty to provide for disposal of all waste indefinitely, but they are judged based on their success during this clearly defined time period.

Smith v. Onyx Oil And Chemical Company

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

The reference therefore will be to New Jersey or New York law as the facts discussed below indicate. 4 The defendant has, in the parlance of the criminal courts, thrown the book at the plaintiff in an effort to establish … 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.

Schlegel v. Koteski

307 F. App'x 657 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 20, 2009

Procedurally, the individual defendants took the actions at issue by means of an established and legitimate process, as required by Gallas, 2111 F.3d at 776. … The board’s adjustments to the office of Real Estate Tax Collector were clearly legislative in nature, thus cloaking the individual board members with absolute immunity.

Sullivan v. Barnett

139 F.3d 158 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 13, 1998

Clearly, however, the statutory provision permitting the termination of benefits in Barnes and the supersedeas provisions at issue here vary significantly. … Safety, 131 F.3d 1415 , 1419 (10th Cir.1997) (raising Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity sua sponte ); Suarez Corp. Indus. v.

Montgomery v. De Simone

159 F.3d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 16, 1998

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether Montgomery’s convictions, which were overturned upon de novo review, conclusively establish probable cause and necessarily negate any possibility that Montgomery could establish … immunity as a defense in section 1983 actions.

Mollo v. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners

406 F. App'x 664 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 20, 2011

. § 1291.2 2 We note, as a preliminary matter, that PVSC raised a defense of qualified immunity before the District Court. … A prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires showing that a person acting would have been entitled to qualified immunity.” App. at 25 n.9.

United States v. Charles Mack

229 F.3d 226 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 2000

The district court found that Mack qualified as an armed career criminal under the ACCA. … Mack’s asserted shooting of Wessels is clearly covered by § 4B1.2(a)(l). .

In Re Wm. Akers, Jr., Co.

121 F.2d 846 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1941

Clearly the line here runs between tax and regulatory expropriation. As the Supreme Court has now spoken any extended discussion would be presumptuous. … The question was the familiar one of the "immunity of instrumentalities." [24] Before that question is even reached, a tax has to be found.