Case law

Chiang v. Veneman

385 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2004

To establish a prima facie case under ECOA the class members must show that (1) plaintiff was a member of a protected class; (2) plaintiff applied for credit from defendants; (3) plaintiff was qualified for the credit; and … that he or she was qualified for loan eligibility as part of the prima facie case.

DeShields v. Shannon

338 F. App'x 120 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State … Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which qualifies as clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Taylor v.

Gerald Lepre, Jr. v. Paul s. Lukus

602 F. App'x 864 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2015

He asserted that Shifler-Ferraro had relinquished her custodial rights of MCL to the FCPD and the Lukuses “to circumvent clearly established law which protects the family unit and in violation of” Lepre’s parental rights … Id. at 772. 6 immunity grounds. See Heffernan v.

Christopher Wills v. USP Canaan

635 F. App'x 5 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 16, 2015

The FTCA is a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity, and, accordingly, prisoners may raise negligence claims against the United States under the Act. See United States v. … Our review of the record establishes that the District Court’s findings were not clearly erroneous with respect to the nature of Wills’s purported exhaustion evidence.

Shenecqua Butt v. United Brotherhood

999 F.3d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 2021

Because these factual findings were not clearly erroneous, see Fields v. Speaker of Pa. … “A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration” are “immune” from a recusal challenge. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 556.

St. Francis Medical Center v. Sullivan

962 F.2d 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 24, 1992

To comply with the 75% rule, the Medical Center transferred some of its "non-qualifying" patients from the rehabilitation unit to its acute care facility. … view whether § 1395oo(a) permits single providers to aggregate claims over several cost report years to meet the amount in controversy requirement. 32 Even if the language of 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a) and § 1395oo(f) do not clearly

Castillo v. Attorney General of the United States

411 F. App'x 500 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 2011

The respondent has the burden of establishing his eligibility for any requested relief from removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8 (d). … That is clearly a question of federal, not state, law, but it is not one directly answered in the INA or the BIA’s opinion in Eslamizar .

Adorers of the Blood of Chris v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

53 F.4th 56 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 8, 2022

The State of New Jersey, however, opposed the condemnation proceedings on sovereign immunity grounds. Id. … . § 717f(h) clearly delegated the federal government’s power to pierce states’ sovereign immunity along with its eminent domain power. Id. at 2253–54.

United States v. Grape

549 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2008

Grape thus concedes that his offenses qualify as serious under either test, and we agree. … For the above reasons, the District Court did not clearly err in coming to the conclusion it did. IV.

Business Ventures International v. Olive

893 F.2d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 1990

I. 2 The taxpayer was incorporated in Delaware on October 5, 1981, and shortly thereafter qualified as a Virgin Islands inhabitant foreign corporation. … To us, that established that it was in the trade or business as described.

Charles E. Chaudoin v. Clarence E. Atkinson, Jr

494 F.2d 1323 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 1974

It is clear, of course, that the 1965 Regulations were issued under the old unamended version of § 709 which had clearly allowed such unrelated activities. … Accomplishes day-to-day assignments independently in accordance with established policies and procedures. 2.

Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting LLC v. Matthew J. Platkin

133 F.4th 213 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 1, 2025

NEW JERSEY DOUBLY RESTRICTS CHARGING FOR ADVICE ABOUT CLAIMING VETERANS BENEFITS Veterans who are left disabled by their service qualify for benefits. But first, they must claim them. … But states cannot immunize their laws from constitu- tional scrutiny by pointing to a federal scheme that may suffer the same constitutional defects.

American Cyanamid Company v. New Penn Motor Express, Inc.

979 F.2d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 4, 1992

Cyanamid, through its Lederle Laboratories Division, manufactures DTP, a vaccine for immunization of infants and children against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. … Clearly, when a matter is committed to a jury determination its resolution is difficult to predict.

Lewis, Mamie A. v. Califano, Joseph, Jr., Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (d.c. Civil No. 78-0861)

616 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 21, 1980

In this appeal, Mamie Lewis challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant, including its holding that her religious beliefs do not qualify as good cause for her decision to decline remedial surgery … Such an inquiry is proper in helping to establish sincerity.

Lawrence Lines v. David Larkins, Warden the District Attorney of the County of Bucks the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania

208 F.3d 153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 2000

Lines’ Due Process Rights were violated (1) when the prosecutor refused, despite demand, to disclose that John Gabriele had been immunized and (2) when the prosecutor permitted John Gabriele to perjure himself throughout … Horn, 126 F.3d at 213 , the aforementioned considerations combine to convince us that Lines is now “clearly foreclosed” from further state court review *166 of his claims.

King Drug Co of Florence Inc v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 26, 2015

Plaintiffs contend that this “no-AG agreement” qualifies as a “reverse payment” under Actavis because, like the cash reverse payments the Court there warned could face antitrust scrutiny, GSK’s no-AG commitment was designed … This reverse payment was not immunized, of course, simply because of that early-entry “generics”).

United Steelworkers of America v. New Jersey Zinc Co.

828 F.2d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 1987

NJ Zinc agreed to “establish a qualified pension plan for those employees of [G & W] who are represented by [Steelworkers], which plan ... shall be substantially similar to [the G & W Plan].” App. at 333. … In addition, the court found that NJ Zinc had established the NJ Zinc Plan “in accordance with the terms of The Asset Purchase Agreement” that it had entered into with G & W. App. at 369.

Richardson v. Felix

856 F.2d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 1988

We shall not set aside the court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). … Thus, Richardson prevails on his due process claim if he can establish that his dismissal deprived him of a protected interest.

Brennan v. Norton

350 F.3d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 2003

This does not, however, suggest that speech which is motivated by private concern can never qualify as protected speech. It clearly can if it addresses a matter that concerns the public as well as the speaker. … Although a plaintiff alleging retaliation for protected speech under § 1983 must ordinarily establish that his/ her speech was a matter of public concern to qualify for the protections of the First Amendment’s guarantee of

Bergen Drug Company Inc., a New Jersey Corporation v. Parke, Davis & Company, a Michigan Corporation

307 F.2d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 27, 1962

In that case, furthermore, the Supreme Court qualified its statement concerning a seller’s freedom to choose customers by indicating that the rule would not apply where there is a purpose to create or maintain a monopoly. … Such a finding was not only a permissible one, but was clearly required under the facts. It appears that defendant has not refused to sell its products to any other drug wholesaler in New Jersey or Connecticut.