Case law

United States v. Preux

342 F. App'x 747 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2009

Saint Preux has the burden of establishing that he is entitled to a three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Boone, 279 F.3d 163, 193 (3d Cir.2002). … The district court was clearly entitled to consider his equivocations when deciding upon the extent of departure Saint Preux was entitled to based on his guilty plea.

Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

834 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2016

court’s re *370 striction of closing argument as structural error" because no Supreme Court precedent clearly established that such mistakes rank as structural error); Lopez v. … Because a decision is categorically “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law,” Williams v.

Roth v. NORFALCO LLC

651 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 2011

It quite clearly is not. A non-federal requirement is ―not substantively the same‖ unless it ―conforms in every significant respect to the Federal requirement.‖ 49 C.F.R. § 107.202(d); see also H.R. Rep. … that Norfalco‘s tank cars are containers qualified for use in transporting hazardous materials in commerce.

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.

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital

707 F.2d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 10, 1983

This parental role is “established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition,” Wisconsin v. … Therefore, we may affirm the district court order only if we conclude that the evidence presented clearly established the existence of a significant countervailing governmental interest.

Shawn Walker v. Michael Farnan

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 2025

Walker was appointed counsel and, after discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment to defendants based on qualified immunity. We affirmed. Williams v. Sec’y Pa. … Walker also did not establish “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify reopening the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). See Budget Blinds, Inc. 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.

Smith v. BIC Corp.

869 F.2d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

As a general rule courts “have not given trade secrets automatic and complete immunity against disclosure, but have in each case weighed their claim to privacy against the need for disclosure.” … Since we rejected the district court’s findings as being clearly erroneous, we must also review the magistrate’s determinations.

Daniel Heffley v. Kimberly Steele

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 2020

of judicial immunity. … To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public

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

Angela Zimmerlink v. Vincent Zapotosky

539 F. App'x 45 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 13, 2013

they were shielded by qualified immunity. … Nevertheless, their briefing and Zimmerlink’s response clearly revolved around the ability of one elected official to bring a First Amendment retaliation claim against other elected officials.

J. C. v. Nicholas Ford

674 F. App'x 230 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 2016

It is well established that the 3 Eleventh Amendment generally bars a civil rights suit in federal court that names the state as a defendant. Laskaris v. … The policy to which 4 J.C. points, as attached to his complaint as Exhibit B1, clearly refutes this claim. See Mayer v.

United States v. Lawrence

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Clearly, if the police had shown each photograph separately, an issue would arise about the defendant’s place in the array. … Yet, in enacting this scheme, Congress clearly did not want to penalize or burden legitimate collectors of firearms or restrict their access to valuable antiques.

Raiczyk v. Ocean County Veterinary Hospital

377 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2004

Raiczyk was to receive for his shares was clearly stated as $206,975.21. Dr. … Raiczyk did not satisfy his legal burden of establishing why the contract should be reformed. The court found that there was no evidence of fraud and that Dr.

Michael Weinik v. Temple University of the Commo

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 13, 2021

While an order denying qualified or absolute immunity is immediately reviewable under the collateral order doctrine “to the extent that the order turns on an issue of law,” Giuffre v. … Dua contends that requiring her to endure discovery to establish subjective intent cannot be the holding of Schanne.

Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Authority, in No. 92-7605 v. Tonolli Corporation Tonolli Canada, Ltd. Ifim International B v. in No. 92-7671

4 F.3d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 1993

study if it establishes that it incurred these costs in response to a release or threatened release of hazardous material and establishes the other elements of such a CERCLA claim. … Most importantly, the district court concluded that Tonolli Canada did not qualify as a “covered person” under CERCLA, 48 U.S.C. § 9607 (a)(1), because it was neither an “owner” nor an “operator” of Tonolli PA.

United States v. William T. Smith, Jr. Appeal of United States of America

793 F.2d 85 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 13, 1986

Clearly, an issue that is “patently without merit” cannot qualify as significant. An issue which has been unanimously decided by the other circuits may or may not be significant. … Precedent clearly establishes that twelve jurors are not required for a conviction. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 , 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970).

United States v. Ronald Johnstone

107 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 24, 1997

Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), the Supreme Court established the constitutional standard that governs claims that excessive force was employed during the course of an arrest. … Ordinary objects, such as large flashlights, are clearly “capable” of inflicting death or serious bodily injury without being employed, and hence they clearly fall within the definition of aggravated assault even if they

No. 99-3279

214 F.3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 31, 2000

He contends that the record establishes that he was totally and permanently disabled during this period due to alcoholism. … First of all, a prerequisite to qualifying for "Active Nonfootball" benefits is that the disability did not result from"League football activities."

Carney v. Pennsauken Township Police Department

598 F. App'x 80 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 2015

P. 56(a). 4 Because we conclude that Carney’s claims were properly disposed of on the merits, we need not address the parties’ arguments on qualified immunity. … And the record clearly demonstrates the lack of any genuine factual dispute that Officer Nurthen’s belief was reasonable.