Case law

In the Matter of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor. Appeal of National Railroad Passenger Corporation

560 F.2d 169 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 1977

Needless to state, no such immunity has been conferred. “[9] Congress plainly intended to eliminate the involvement of bankrupt estates and reorganization courts in the ownership and operation of the rail system in the northeastern … To require the Trustees to plan for, finance, and carry out maintenance and improvements after the April 1 cutoff date would be clearly inconsistent with these provisions, as well as with the provisions of § 211(h) of the

United States v. Ilma Soriano Nunez

928 F.3d 240 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 2, 2019

. § 3231. 4 immunity as a legitimate ground to appeal denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment); Abney v. … Congress established laws governing the release or detention of criminal defendants, and the Executive has the authority to invoke those laws to ensure a defendant’s presence at criminal proceedings and the community’s safety

United States v. Minutoli

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 8, 2004

not qualify him for the requested departure. … Looking out for clearly in a given case.

Finizie v. Shineski

351 F. App'x 668 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2009

Under that framework, Finizie bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. … It is well-established that, under Title VII, an “employer has discretion to choose among equally qualified candidates, provided the decision is not based upon unlawful criteria.” Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v.

Maxfield v. Sinclair International

766 F.2d 788 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 3, 1985

We turn first to Sinclair’s claim that Maxfield failed to establish a pri-ma facie case. II. … Since the district court found that in the present case “reinstatement would clearly be an undesirable remedy,” App. at 20, the front pay award was permissible. See EEOC v.

United States v. Robert Franz

772 F.3d 134 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 4, 2014

Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004), a qualified immunity case in which the Supreme Court relied on the “facial deficiency” language in Leon to conclude that it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was … While Franz disputes that the search of his home was appropriately limited, he has not established and, given the record, cannot establish that the District Court’s finding on that point was clearly erroneous.

Michael Boswell v. Steve Eoon

452 F. App'x 107 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 17, 2011

In addition, the District Court concluded that Feaster was entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity.

United States v. Morris C. Goldberg, Also Known as Moe Goldberg and M. C. Goldberg

330 F.2d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 1, 1964

We think the documents and records were clearly admissible under Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 . … When he, in turn, notified counsel for both sides, appellant moved for a mistrial on the ground that juror No. 10 had not been properly qualified to take the oath and serve as a juror.

National Labor Relations Board v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc.

429 F.2d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 20, 1970

Republic Aviation clearly established, in the context of § 8(a) (1) violation the primary responsibility of the Labor Board for the weighing of competing legitimate interests in light of the “infinite combination of events … To establish that the promise of benefits- constitutes a violation of § 8(a) (1), improper (antiunion) motive must be established.

Conoshenti v. Pub Ser Elec & Gas

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 13, 2004

[It] establishes provisions and the employees’ FMLA an irrebuttable presumption that the rights. … must also be “clearly identified and firmly Weichert, 677 A.2d 162, 168 (N.J. 1996). grounded . . . .

Citizens Council v. Brinegar

741 F.2d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 1984

more than 500 employees at the time the civil action was filed____;” it held that the College qualified as a tax-exempt entity under id. § 2412(d)(2)(B)(ii); and it held that the Civic Association qualified under id. § 2412 … This clearly does not admit of an argument for substantial justification.

In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation

579 F.3d 241 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 2009

would establish a $100,000,000 settlement fund for the benefit of the Settlement Class. … ‘well qualified and experienced class action attorneys,’ ” and the interests of the named plaintiffs “are not antagonistic to those of the absent class members.”

Transportes Ferreos De Venezuela II Ca v. Nkk Corporation Edc, Inc. The Sheffer Corporation the Sheffer Corporation, Third-Party v. Jorgensen Steel & Aluminum, a Division of Earle M. Jorgensen Company Artco, Inc., Third-Party Edc, Inc., Third-Party v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Third-Party

239 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2001

Thus, the rod-eye failure qualifies as an "occurrence," and this cause qualifies as a "suit," as those terms are defined in the contract. … However, New Jersey law is not so generous; as noted, more than speculation and conjecture is required to establish substantial prejudice.

United States v. Nicholas A. Stirone

262 F.2d 571 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 27, 1959

If the limitations given to the jury by the trial judge were more strict than he was required by law to make, that is, clearly, not a matter of which the defendant can complain. IV. Prejudicial Misconduct at The Trial. … Even this general statement must be qualified in prosecutions for sex offenses.

Kobell v. United Food And Commercial Workers International Union, Local 23, Afl-Cio-Clc

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

III 16 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.

Kenneth Wayne Nelson v. Charles K. Miller, Captain, United States Navy, Etc.

373 F.2d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 13, 1967

Since the occurrence of the act complained of was uncertain, the suit was clearly premature. 21 . … . § 724.1 et seq., established pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1553 , which functions solely after discharge. Under the regulations, the Board’s powers are rather limited.

Raymond J. Donovan v. Metropolitan District Council Of Carpenters

797 F.2d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 1986

A third candidate, not involved in this litigation, also participated. 4 The Council establishes election procedures for each election based on recommendations of the presidents of the local unions. … This is not to say that anything said at a Council meeting and reported in the minutes is thereby immune from scrutiny under 401(g); on the contrary, union officers may not use official time or minutes distributed with union

Bethel Baptist Church v. United States

822 F.2d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1987

The former justification is clearly secular because it represents an attempt to comply with a plausible judicial construction of the first amendment. … Quern, 611 F.2d 206 (7th Cir.1979) (summary judgment proper where Supreme Court precedent clearly established that state Medicaid legislation did not constitute ex post facto law). .

United States v. Harris

498 F.2d 1164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 30, 1974

I think you can get to the point clearly and promptly and unequivocally.” The court also stated that in light of what it *1168 termed Mr. … Although this latter phrase clearly referred to the Government’s inability to promise Ms.

National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Attorney General New Jersey

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 2023

It also requires industry members to “establish, im- plement, and enforce reasonable controls” on these activities. § 2C:58-35(a)(2). The Attorney General has not yet tried to en- force the Law against anyone. … Though the Law clearly regu- lates selling and marketing guns, whether the Foundation’s in- tended conduct is arguably forbidden is murky. And in the same vein, they also undermine the threat of enforcement. C.