Case law

David Fields v. City of Pittsburgh

714 F. App'x 137 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 26, 2017

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), that the officers’ conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and in any event that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 9, 14, 16. … Fields has not established that his constitutional rights were violated,5 so his § 1983 claim fails and we need not consider the issue of qualified immunity. See Saucier v.

United States v. Joseph Fiorelli

133 F.3d 218 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 6, 1998

Some said they wanted to assure themselves of a good supply of qualified union workers or to avoid trouble over their having used nonunion workers. … None of these findings is clearly erroneous.

Thomas v. Town of Hammonton

351 F.3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 4, 2003

Termination of employment is a qualifying event. Id. § 300bb-3(2). … The District Court’s docket entries clearly show that the audio exhibits were part of the record.

Thomas Gage v. Borough of Hopatcong

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 10, 2026

The District Court granted those motions, holding that Ruschke was entitled to qualified immunity and that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims against the NJDEP pursuant to the state’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity … But those assertions were premised on adverse rulings, which, without more, do not establish that Judge Martinotti had a personal bias or prejudice against Gage, nor do they provide a basis upon which to reasonably question

Commonwealth & Southern Corp. v. Securities & Exchange Commission

134 F.2d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 31, 1943

that the companies involved achieve a stated result in integration of operations, divestment of nonintegrated properties, simplification of corporate structure or distribution of voting power in order to meet the standards established … Congress clearly expressed in section 1(c) the policy which motivated the act.

United States v. One Toshiba Color Television Two Answering MacHines One Health Tech Computer Reginald McGlory in No. 98-3578 (Pursuant to Rule 12(a), f.r.a.p.) (d.c. Civ. No. 90-Cv-00138) United States of America v. Assorted Jewelry Reginald McGlory in No. 98-3579 (Pursuant to Rule 12(a), f.r.a.p.) (d.c. Civ. No. 90-Cv-00370)

213 F.3d 147 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 2000

Central Hanover Bank & Trust, Co, 339 U.S. 306 (1950), which established the framework for evaluating the adequacy of notice for due process purposes. … For due process purposes, therefore, the attempted notice was clearly inadequate.

Catherine Jackson, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Metropolitan Edison Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation

483 F.2d 754 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 1973

The Court said very specifically and clearly: “ . . . we do not rely on the mere fact that Capital Transit operates a public utility . . . … And so, although the plaintiff’s position has strong appeal, that is not enough to establish a constitutional basis.

Leatch Booker, Iii v. Taylor Milk Company, Inc.

64 F.3d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 1995

See id. at 708 . 8 Whether or not a claimant has met his duty to mitigate damages is a determination of fact, which is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. … for which Plaintiff was qualified.

Butler County Memorial Hospital v. Heckler

780 F.2d 352 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 1985

These rulings were clearly erroneous. The judg *359 ment therefore will be vacated and the case remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. . … The SCU regulation was amended shortly thereafter, and the hospital concedes that its MCU does not qualify for the subsequent years. .

Fischetti v. Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2004

established” therefore, requires us to determine what benchmark should be done on a case- the clearly established Supreme Court … For example, courts’ application of clearly established in the retroactivity context, a decision is United States Supreme Court precedent.” viewed as the application of an established Marshall,

Interfaith Community Organization Lawrence Baker Martha Webb Herring Margaret Webb Rev. Winston Clarke Margarita Navas v. Honeywell International, Inc. Formerly Known as Alliedsignal, Inc. Roned Realty of Jersey City, Inc. Roned Realty of Union City, Inc W.R. Grace & Company Ecarg, Inc W.R. Grace, Ltd. W.R. Grace & Company Ecarg, Inc W.R. Grace, Ltd., Defendants/third-Party v. Heller-Jersey City, L.L.C. Home Depot, U.S.A. Seaman Furniture Company, Inc. Third Party Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc. William Sheehan v. Honeywell International, Inc. Formerly Known as Alliedsignal, Inc Roned Realty of Jersey City, Inc. Roned Realty of Union City, Inc. W.R. Grace, Ltd. Honeywell International, Inc.

399 F.3d 248 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 18, 2005

As we will discuss below, these findings are not clearly erroneous. … established wrong.

T Mobile Northeast LLC v. City of Wilmington

913 F.3d 311 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 10, 2019

That something might have been said even more clearly does not mean it is not clear enough. … Ct. 709, 716 (2016) (Thus, “[w]e treat a time bar as jurisdictional only if Congress has ‘clearly stated’ that it is.”).

Impounded (Juvenile R.G., Appellant)

117 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1997

. § 5032 , which establishes a two-step procedure governing the transfer of juveniles from state to federal court for criminal prosecution. … We do not, however, read the Eighth Circuit as generally allowing review of a § 5032 certification, or departing from the general principles established in the cases cited above.

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.

Hattersley v. Bollt

512 F.2d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 1975

Nevertheless, because the judgment fixes Lazovitz’s ultimate liability and clearly establishes the parameters of that liability, it is a final, appealable order. 10 The Supreme Court of the United States has emphasized that … Bollt argues that Lazovitz cannot qualify as a statutory employer because the evidence established Bollt’s possession of the premises. See III — A, supra, and N.T. 677.

Cooper v. Tard

855 F.2d 125 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 1988

Further, the Nation of Islam established a hierarchy with positions assigned to members. … Clearly, there is a valid, rational reason for not permitting plaintiffs to establish an infrastructure within the MCU and have it openly function merely because plaintiffs claim a right to engage in their activities on the

Monongahela Valley Hospital, Inc. v. Sullivan

945 F.2d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 1991

More specifically, the manner in which Monongahela and Mon Vale handled the transferred funds failed to satisfy either of the two crucial elements in the establishment of a funded depreciation account: (1) they were not clearly … Indeed, as we have discussed, see supra at 580, at least some of the transferred sums clearly were not devoted to the exclusive purposes for which funded depreciation accounts are to be established and were instead expended

Apolinar Martinez-Mendoza v. Champion International Corporation

340 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 2003

class representative and, if not qualified, whether a member of the class is willing and qualified to serve as class representative. … The evidence unequivocally establishes, however, that F & K's contracts with Champion were the products of arms' length negotiations.

United States v. Antonio Davis

929 F.2d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 2, 1991

Based on this analysis, each of Davis’s prior juvenile adjudications qualifies for two criminal history points under Section 4A1.2(d)(2) because in each case “the maximum sentence imposed” was at least 60 days. … At oral argument before us, the government urged that the case be remanded so that the precise sequence of events may be established.

Teamsters Local Union No. 30 v. Helms Express Inc.

591 F.2d 211 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 5, 1979

Article 47 allows an employer to discharge or suspend employees only for “just cause,” Appendix at 64; clearly poor performance and productivity on the part of an employee would qualify as “just cause.” … While clearly this does not prevent Sever, as an individual member of a signatory union from claiming under § 301, Smith v.