Case law

United States v. Leveto

540 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 2008

It is established that the denial of a request for counsel, following a waiver, is only proper “if a defendant seeks counsel in an apparent effort to delay or disrupt proceedings on the eve of trial,” Proctor 166 F.3d at … Lapina, 258 F.3d 156 (3d Cir.2001) (Alito, J., writing for the Court, found that IRS agents had violated Leveto’s Fourth Amendment rights but had qualified immunity).

United States v. City of Philadelphia

798 F.2d 81 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 1986

While ostensibly a question of governmental immunity, see, e.g., id. at 269, 63 S.Ct. at 620 , this issue is perhaps “best understood as posing an issue essentially of federal pre *86 emption.” 5 L. … an integral part of its military recruiting policy, and that the Order significantly impairs the military’s ability to recruit the skilled personnel it requires. 10 We conclude, therefore, that the Order conflicts with a clearly

Dean Nathan Campbell v. Donald T. Vaughn the District Attorney of the County of Delaware the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania

209 F.3d 280 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 12, 2000

established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” Matteo v. … As this decision was not “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law,” or an “unreasonable application of’ such law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), habeas relief under § 2254(d)(1) is unwarranted, see Matteo v.

Renda v. King

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 16, 2003

Renda clearly engaged in an indirect attack on Trooper King’s character for truthfulness by arguing during her opening statement that the jury should not believe Trooper King when he claimed that Renda had told him that she … In order to recover under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant, under color of state law, subjected the plaintiff to a deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the constitution or laws of the

Jeffery Hannan v. City of Philadelphia

408 F. App'x 581 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 3, 2010

After the district court allowed Officer Hannan=s First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed to trial, Commissioner Johnson filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court=s rejection of his qualified immunity … Because Officer Hannan cannot establish that he engaged in protected activity, the retaliation claim was properly dismissed. C. Officer Hannan=s Municipal Liability Claim.

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General United States

825 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 2016

Here, each of the Statutes we review is clearly content based on its face. … It clearly rejects any justification of a facially content-based law because of some benign purpose.

Jean-Louis v. Attorney General of the United States

582 F.3d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 6, 2009

Hence, Nijhawan and Babaisakov do not support abandoning our established methodology. … In Duenas-Alvarez , the hypothetical conduct asserted by the alien was not clearly a violation of California law.

Jan Knapik v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

384 F.3d 84 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 2004

We clearly afford Chevron deference to the BIA’s definition of "moral turpitude.” … Nonetheless, both Nugent and Munroe found it proper to examine the amount of loss established.

United States v. Alonzo L. Harris A/K/A "Letter" Alonzo L. Harris

44 F.3d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 10, 1995

Phaser Mace is thus clearly reported in its promotional literature to be incapable of causing death. … The court of appeals held that this finding was not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Derick Taylor

444 F. App'x 613 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2011

Although he acknowledged he had a 1991 drug conviction, he asserted that the certified record of conviction failed to clearly indicate whether that conviction was for mere possession or for possession with intent to distribute … Whether the documents proffered by the government establish that a prior conviction qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA is a question of 3 law subject to plenary

Singh v. Atty Gen USA

432 F.3d 533 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 3, 2006

To qualify as a “crime of violence” within 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), a criminal statute must require a mens rea of specific intent to use force; mere recklessness is insufficient. … It is well-established that attempt cannot be established without a mental state of specific intent. See Knapik v.

United States v. Michael Cicirello

301 F.3d 135 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2002

The Court also ruled that Cicirello did not qualify for credit for acceptance of responsibility, but that issue has not been raised before us on appeal. … We can only conclude that Cicirello’s offense is within the “heartland” of § 2K2.1, clearly anticipated by its terms. See Uca, 867 F.2d at 787-90 .

Sandra Barker v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

382 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 24, 2003

Specifically, the Board noted, contrary to Barker’s assertion, that she may otherwise qualify for an adjustment of status “[was] not sufficient to establish exceptional circumstances,” “such as serious illness of the alien … We note here, however, that Barker’s first argument has no merit because the record clearly shows that the IJ provided both adequate oral and written notice as statutorily required.

Edson Arneault v. Kevin O'Toole

513 F. App'x 195 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 7, 2013

A causal connection can be shown by ―either (1) an unusually suggestive temporal proximity between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish … MTR’s complaints qualify as an exercise of that right. See E. R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 137 (1961).

PG Publishing Co v. Carol Aichele

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 15, 2013

Id. at 681- 83 (“[The press] has no special immunity from the application of general laws [and] no special privilege to invade the rights First Amendment Coal. v. … In light of the foregoing discussion — and our earlier directive that the tradition of openness must be objectively and clearly established — we find that the historical record is insufficient to establish a presumption of

Zigmund A. Milos, Individually and Trading as Milos Ford Sales v. Ford Motor Company and A. W. Kennedy Motor Company

317 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 1963

The term ‘fair and equitable’ as used in the bill is qualified by the term ‘so as to guarantee the one party freedom from coercion, intimidation, or threats of coercion or intimidation from the other party.’ … With respect to Kennedy’s quota, the record clearly discloses that it was reduced from 391 cars in 1955 to 163 in 1956, after the establishment of plaintiff’s dealership.

United States v. Mekail Jones

740 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 10, 2014

that Jones’s misdemeanor flight conviction qualified as a crime of violence. 2. … And clearly much more significant than it otherwise would have been without them.

Doe v. Luzerne County

660 F.3d 169 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 12, 2011

The nonmoving party cannot establish a genuine dispute as to a material fact by pointing to unsupported allegations in the pleadings. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). … Similarly, the Supreme Court has stated that the Fourth Amendment applies 8 County Defendants have not asserted a qualified immunity defense. 20 to governmental conduct whether ―the government

Dean Corder v. Howard Johnson & Company

37 F.3d 550 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 7, 1994

At trial, the plaintiff failed to prove that an ERISA plan had been established. … Neither case even discusses the issue of who must bring suit to qualify for attorney's fees under Sec. 1132(g)(1). Howard Johnson & Co.'

In re: Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation v.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 7, 2024

Momenta Pharms., Inc., 850 F.3d 52, 56 (1st Cir. 2017) (“Noerr-Pennington immunity . . . has a well- established exception for knowing misrepresentations, at least in the administrative and adjudicatory contexts.” … Momenta Pharms., Inc., 850 F.3d 52, 56 (1st Cir. 2017) (“Noerr-Pennington immunity . . . has a well-established exception for knowing misrepresentations, at least in the administrative and adjudicatory contexts.”