Case law

In Re Heidnik.

112 F.3d 105 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 18, 1997

Id. at 402 , 80 S.Ct. at 789 (emphasis added). 6 39 The district court's conclusion that the petitioner had not clearly established that Heidnik lacked the capacity to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver with … Betty Heidnik has also claimed next friend status, but because her relationship to Heidnik remains unclear (she appears to be his ex-wife), it would not appear at present that she qualifies 2 There is no dispute that Ms.

Weir v. Fada

123 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 25, 1997

Schlumberger Tech., Inc., 944 F.2d 26, 31 (1st Cir.1991) ("Federal courts have established no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA. … Under the second definition, the FDIC is clearly a Successor to FADA; upon passage of FIRREA, the FDIC had authority to appoint all of FADA's directors.

Marguerite B. Reid v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services

735 F.2d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 31, 1984

In addition, the immunity of benefits from execution or garnishment and the prohibition against their assignment contained in section 407(a) of Title II applies to Title XVI. 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (d)(1). … This brief history of Titles II and XVI establishes several points.

James F. Pastore v. Taiyo Gyogyo, K.K. v. Lavino Shipping Co. And City of Philadelphia

571 F.2d 777 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 15, 1978

The precise way in which the plaintiff fell was, perhaps, not clearly foreseeable. … We agree with the district court that in this context there appears to be no basis for distinguishing between an employer’s federal and state statutory immunity from suit.

United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land, More or Less

576 F.2d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 27, 1978

Their holding extends the Ratay/Pritchard/McNello rule far beyond its limited scope of requiring reversal when a court fails to charge according to clearly established principles of law. … The italicized language is clearly inconsistent with the language of 564.54 Acres I quoted above.

Sergio Calderon-Rosas v. Attorney General United States

957 F.3d 378 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 27, 2020

As to the motion to remand, the BIA explained only that it “conclude[d] that [Calderon-Rosas] ha[d] not established that he was prejudiced by his prior counsel [sic] alleged ineffectiveness” because he “ha[d] not established … it was “without authority to consider new evidence offered for 15 the first time on appeal,” id., despite clearly applicable law to the contrary, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (requiring submission

Kobell ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 23

788 F.2d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 16, 1986

Ill We cannot say that the factual findings of the district court are clearly erroneous. … However, appellant expressly disavows any argument that the court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Appellant’s Reply Brief p. 18. .

Lou J. RANKIN, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services

761 F.2d 936 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 10, 1985

The first, non-waivable, condition is clearly satisfied here because the defendant was in fact paid the claim for benefits. … Although the plaintiff failed to appeal from the cessation determination of April 16, 1981, we find that later events in this case establish the equivalence of full compliance with the § 405(g) requirement.

Toll Bros., Inc. v. Township of Readington

555 F.3d 131 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 4, 2009

After all, the developer “would still have to secure financing, qualify for federal subsidies, and carry through with construction.” Id. … The developer still would have needed “to secure financing, qualify for federal subsidies, and carry through with construction.” Id. at 261 , 97 S.Ct. 555 .

Brayan Guzman Orellana v. Attorney General United States

956 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 2020

rises to the level of persecution; whether Guzman’s imputed membership in that group is a central reason for his persecution; whether the Salvadoran government is unable or unwilling to control MS-13; and whether it is clearly … , the IJ must ask (1) how public officials will likely act in response to the harm the petitioner fears and (2) whether the likely response from public officials qualifies as acquiescence.38 Whereas the first part of both

United States v. Cohen

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 1999

to testify, the proffered testimony is clearly exculpatory, the proffered testimony is essential to the defense, and there is no strong governmental interest against the immunity. … The District Court must reduce the base offense by 2 levels "[i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense." U.S.S.G. S 3E1.1.

Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

694 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 27, 2012

Thus, the Tax Court‟s finding that PB “might not receive its preferred return … at all” unless NJSEA exercised its Call Option (J.A. at 51-52), was clearly erroneous because it ignored the reality that PB could assure its … The structure of PB‟s “investment,” however, shows clearly that there was no 82 such intent.

United States v. John P. Moscony

927 F.2d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 1991

. §§ 203.19 (a)(1), 221.50(a); (2) the buyer must use the home as a residence to qualify for a 97% loan-to-value mortgage, 24 C.F.R. §§ 203.18 (c), 221.20(a); and (3) the buyer must have an income sufficient to make the mortgage … (attorney’s access to privileged information conclusively presumed once attorney-client relationship established), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980), and was clearly “related to” their representation

Estate of Rose D'ambrosio, Deceased, Vita D'Ambrosio v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

101 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 26, 1996

The tax court’s opinion is supported by well-established case law and the plain language of the Internal Revenue Code. It should be affirmed. I. … D’Ambrosio clearly fails this requirement that all title, enjoyment, and possession of the transferred property be unequivocally halted.

Klein v. Califano

586 F.2d 250 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 1978

In American Bible Society, Liner, and Meyers the defendant clearly had a viable cause of action based on the injunction bond. … These findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous (A. 288): "Shore Manor is the largest provider of skilled nursing and intermediate care services in New Jersey's Medicaid program.

Powell v. Ridge

247 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 6, 2001

In my view, Larsen establishes our jurisdiction here to review the merits of the claimed immunity. … Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 529- 30 (1985) (same with respect to qualified executive immunity).

Odessa Woods v. The National Life and Accident Insurance Company, a Tennessee Corporation

380 F.2d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 7, 1967

He recorded a diagnosis, qualified in oral testimony as a “tentative diagnosis,” of “sarcoidosis, pulmonary mycosis, and bronchiolitis to be ruled out.” Dr. … Greenlee was not clearly included. We must therefore conclude that if there were fraud on the part of Mr.

Giddings v. Joseph Coleman Center

278 F. App'x 131 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 2008

In the alternative, it suggested that Clewell was entitled to qualified immunity. Giddings now appeals.1 II. … Finally, because no constitutional violation occurred, we forgo any discussion of qualified immunity. 5  III.

Perera v. Attorney General of the United States

447 F. App'x 365 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 5, 2011

It determined that because “there are discrepancies and implausibilities in [Perera’s] testimony, the Immigration Judge’s credibility finding is not clearly erroneous.” … The BIA determined that “the evidence does not establish [that Perera or his family] would qualify for protection under CAT because it is more likely than not that the respondents would be subject to torture by or with the

United States v. Utz

80 F. 848 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 1897

The court is not at liberty, upon a mere conjecture as to the supposed actuating motive of the parties, to introduce into their stipulation a qualifying term, ani thus restrict the stipulation to dutiable sample packages, … That case, however, ruled merely that the limitation prescribed by the act of March 3, 1863, amendatory of the act establishing the court of claims, does not bar in that court a claim referred to it for determination by the