Case law

United States v. Carl Howard Carter, Lester Murphy Hayes, Alfredo S. Desphy. Carl Howard Carter

401 F.2d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 24, 1969

We feel that this case falls clearly within the rule announced in United States v. Sheridan, 329 U.S. 379 , 67 S.Ct. 332 , 91 L.Ed. 359 .” … This rule is qualified by a number of exceptions stated in terms of the capacity of the evidence to prove some specific fact or issue such as intent, plan, scheme or design. E. g., United States v.

Emma Bohlen v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

483 F.2d 918 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 1973

Bohlen qualifies for a statutory right of review narrows itself to whether the claim she submitted for the second dental procedure raises a question of “entitlement” or one of “amount.” … Section 1395u(b) (3) (C) states that such contracts shall provide that the carrier establish and maintain procedures for a fair hearing by the carrier. Such procedures have been established. 20 C.F.

John Zimmerman v. Thomas Corbett, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 27, 2018

Because the motions to dismiss invoked qualified immunity, we had jurisdiction to entertain an immediate appeal from the Appellees. Zimmerman v. Corbett et al., 873 F.3d 414, 416 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2017). … Zimmerman’s two remaining issues challenge any immunity given to Appellees for the malicious prosecution.

Michael C. v. Radnor Township School District

202 F.3d 642 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

The court also granted PDE's separate motion for dismissal of the S 1983 claim as to it based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. This timely appeal followed. 1 We will affirm. I. 3 The facts of this case are undisputed. … (A.127a-28a). 11 We do not address whether the mediation procedures codified at section 1415(e) by the 1997 IDEA amendments qualify as "proceedings conducted pursuant to" section 1415 under the pendency requirement. 12 See

Kerrigan's Estate v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.

199 F.2d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 12, 1952

The plaintiff is a Pennsylvania domiciliary who has qualified as the executor of a New Jersey decedent. … The problem may be stated more clearly in hypothetical terms than by cluttering up the statement of the question with the details. 1 P, promisor, buys a business from its owners, A and B.

UNITED STATES of America v. Craig B. SOKOLOW, Appellant

81 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 18, 1996

Factual determinations underlying the application of the guidelines are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. … Id. 10 .Relevant excerpts read as follows: The activities conducted by [NIBA] clearly indicate to the Court as a matter of fact and law that [NIBA’s] business operation clearly was not a valid ERISA employment benefit plan

Britting v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

409 F. App'x 566 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 1, 2011

Furthermore, in expanding the definition of disability, the ADAAA clearly increased the VA‟s liability for past conduct. … As a result, we conclude that the ADAAA cannot be applied retroactively.3 Britting argues that the new statute is nevertheless applicable because it effects a waiver of sovereign immunity.

In Re John Paul Minarik

166 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 3, 1999

a new chapter 154 of Title 28 governing habeas proceedings against qualifying states in capital cases found in § 107 of the Act. … 234, 242 , 105 S.Ct. 3142 , 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) (requiring "an intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute” as satisfactory evidence that Congress focused on and decided to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity

United States v. Joseph Cammarata

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 2025

they are to qualify to receive payment. … See Williams, 974 F.3d at 357 (“The fact that the evidence is intrinsic establishes its probative nature[.]”).

Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

542 F.2d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 23, 1976

Such additional compensation shall be paid out of the special fund established in section 44. 44 Stat. 1429 (emphasis supplied). … Under these circumstances, an award of counsel fees is clearly appropriate.

American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Sidamon-Eristoff

669 F.3d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 5, 2012

In Nieves, a 1986 amendment to the Virgin Island’s Workmen’s Compensation Act retroactively eliminated an employer’s immunity from tort actions. 819 F.2d at 1248. … Because the employer had immunity under the law at the time of the contract, this amendment exposed the employer to significant additional tort liability that was unexpected. Id.

David Oddi v. Ford Motor Company

234 F.3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 13, 2000

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states: 26 If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by … Rule 702 thus "clearly contemplates some degree of regulation of the subjects about which an expert may testify." Id. at 589. Consequently, the Court established a "gatekeeping role for the [trial] judge."

Lawrence Twp Bd Ed v. New Jersey

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2005

Section 1415(a) of the IDEA, entitled “establishment of procedures,” provides that procedures shall be established and maintained “in accordance with this section to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents … Thus, the Township argues that the broader language of section 1415(b)(6) – “an opportunity to present complaints with respect to any matter...” – clearly demonstrates that Congress intended to permit persons or entities

Compensation Department Of District Five, United Mine Workers Of America, Appellant, v. Ray Marshall

667 F.2d 336 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 9, 1981

See 33 U.S.C. § 921 (b)(1) (BRB's members are to be "appointed by the Secretary from among individuals who are especially qualified to serve"). … Kyne to be clearly distinguishable from the case sub judice, however, and we reject District Five's contention that the remedies available from the BRB with respect to § 413(b) are inadequate. 29 In Leedom v.

United States v. Asher, Robert B.

854 F.2d 1483 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 20, 1988

The government refused to give Smith immunity and insisted that he plead guilty to a felony count. … This line of questioning did no more than establish the sequence of events that preceded Smith’s decision to testify at his own trial.

Johnson v. Dye

175 F.2d 250 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 1949

The testimony of these witnesses as well as that of the petitioner established that it was the custom of the Georgia authorities to treat chain gang prisoners with persistent and deliberate brutality at or about the time … The record of the proceedings before the Cobb County Superior Court of the State of Georgia demonstrates clearly, however, that Johnson’s statement was incorrect.

United States v. Merced

603 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 20, 2010

Due to his criminal history, Merced qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. … It is undisputed that Merced qualifies as a career offender under this definition.

United States v. Francis Brooks

747 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2014

It was certainly not intended to immunize police officers from prosecution for such clearly illegal actions as restraining someone’s liberty until a ransom is paid. … Indeed, that proposition is so firmly established as to require no citation.

Polish Army Veterans Post 147 v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Polish Army Veterans Post 147 Home Association v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

236 F.2d 509 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 1956

Undoubtedly they were well disposed towards the organization, glad to help and to be admitted to the club rooms but those things standing alone were never intended by Section 101(3) to be sufficient to establish exemption … It and whatever excuses petitioners have, if any, for not filing the returns must be clearly, fully and fairly submitted to the Tax Court.

Robert Gavalik, Frank Grelo, Joseph Urban, Anthony Ulyan, Donald A. Berger, Ronald Clarke, Henry Foster, George Patterson, Joseph Kellerman, Robert Pavlik, Phillip Farley, Thomas Riley, Thomas Warren and Francis Humenik v. Continental Can Company. Albert J. Jakub, Fred Cipriana, Jr., Anthony J. Bernardo, Thomas A. Mulligan, William T. Tarr, Donald W. Roberts, Ernest Wirbecki and George W. Stepanic on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Alfred Borrelli, Jr., Michael Di Iorio, Anthony Folino, Thomas E. Johston, Robert Kapolka, John C. Kincel, Peter A. Rumain, Harry H. Smith, Melvin J. Smith, Jack A. Stull and Ernest B. Taddeo, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Continental Can Company, a Member of Continental Group, Inc. Appeal of Robert Gavalik and Albert J. Jakub Appeal of Continental Can Company, U.S.A., a Member of the Continental Group, Inc

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. 106 We now turn to the final issue in this case: the effect of the Teamsters-Franks presumption on the defendant's burden on rebuttal where discriminatory intent is established