Case law

Diehl v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.

211 F.2d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 3, 1954

The pertinent provision of this contract provided that “A car man helper, who has qualified as a car man mechanic * * * and is presently working on position of a temporary car man mechanic on the effective date of this agreement … How far that differed from his position, had he remained actively at work, does not appear; but clearly the amendment presupposed that a difference there might be.”

Bell, Warner v. United States of America, Department of Labor, the Travelers Insurance Company, Wistar Institute, Callahan, John J. Jr., Bell, Warner, Cross-Appellee v. United States of America, Department of Labor, the Travelers Insurance Company, Wistar Institute, Callahan, John J. Jr. Appeal of the Travelers Insurance Company, Cross-Appellant

754 F.2d 490 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 1, 1985

In arguing for its interpretation, Travelers apparently ignored the import of section 103's qualifying language "of a kind." … As such, a truck clearly comes under the Code's definition of "vehicle."

Peaco v. Commissioner

48 F. App'x 423 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 27, 2002

Appellants (and their professional tax accountants) clearly had advanced knowledge of and an obligation to follow Schleier. … Based on these facts, the Tax Court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that the primary and overarching purpose of Mrs.

Chen v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

Department of Justice, EOIR established by coerced abortion or Notifies Persons Eligible for Full Asylum sterilization of the other spouse.” … Of course, with the qualify as persecution under the prevailing 1996 amendment, Congress did add the definition of the term. See 142 Cong.

International Society For Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. New Jersey Sports And Exposition Authority

691 F.2d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 16, 1982

The Authority is established in the Department of Community Affairs, id., and the Governor may veto any action that it takes. … Conrad is clearly distinguishable from this case.

United States v. Anthony Gallagher, John McCarthy and Allison Fredenburgh

602 F.2d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 1979

Gallagher and McCarthy needed money to finance the operation of their business but were unable to qualify for bank loans. … This language, considered collectively, clearly charges an offense under § 656, and the indictment is not facially deficient.

Chadwick v. Court of Common Pleas

244 F. App'x 451 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 2007

release him, that the doctrine of respondeat superior cannot form the basis of liability under § 1983 for the claims against defendants Nardolillo and Sexton, and that these defendants are, in any event, entitled to qualified … immunity.

Basista v. Weir

340 F.2d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 8, 1965

It was not established to whom he made these requests. At any rate Scalese went about his duties and Smith returned to patrol. … Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927), the plaintiff, a Negro, a qualified voter, was denied the right to vote at a state primary election. He sued, laying the damages at $5,000.

United States v. Marc Harris

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 2023

So, in that respect, too, the state statute is broader in application than ACCA’s elements clause, which clearly does require “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another[,] … Chief among these was that, as was the case in Taylor, a defendant’s record of conviction might not clearly identify the defendant’s criminal conduct for past convictions. Id. at 601.

The Mary F. Barrett

279 F. 329 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 24, 1922

the suit was one brought by the libel-ant for general average contribution. [2] Now, of the right of the. lost cargo owner to maintain such an action against the saved ship and the saved cargo there can be no doubt, for clearly … Indeed, to thus hold the seaworthy ship liable for the master’s negligence, it seems to us is to shear every vestige of immunity granted by the Harter Act to the shipowner, who has furnished a seaworthy vessel, and it can

Bruce Pickel and Lauren Pickel v. United States

746 F.2d 176 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 5, 1984

This is clearly— THE COURT: I think your objection is overruled. The government has been acting very, very unfairly here in the last hour or so, especially at the recess. MS. SCOTT-CLAYTON: Your Honor, I apologize. … United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), it was recognized that the government has a qualified privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who has provided information

Kauffman v. Moss

420 F.2d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 1970

. 6 A state prosecuting attorney is immune from liability under the Civil Rights Act, unless his alleged actions are clearly outside the scope of his jurisdiction. … In our view, a guilty verdict per se no more establishes the veracity of every witness than it determines which of several alternative factual combinations the jury believed 11 We note that appellant's allegation that appellees

Bass v. Butler

116 F. App'x 376 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 30, 2004

Based on these standards, the Commonwealth Court’s finding that “the participation of WCJ Rosen did not deprive Bass of a fair adjudication by a qualified fact-finder” is enough to establish that it adjudicated Bass’s as-applied … Whether she did so properly, Bass clearly made an attempt to have the state court consider her federal constitutional claims. .

United States v. Marc Harris

88 F.4th 481 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 2023

So, in that respect, too, the state statute is broader in application than ACCA’s elements clause, which clearly does require “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another[,] … Chief among these was that, as was the case in Taylor, a defendant’s record of conviction might not clearly identify the defendant’s criminal conduct for past convictions. Id. at 601.

United States v. Christine Annemarie Lennon, Christine A. Lennon

372 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 16, 2004

In order to establish, therefore, that the Ex Post Facto clause requires the application of an earlier version of the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant must show that the crime was committed at a time that the earlier Guidelines … Notwithstanding the reference to Lennon’s “re-entry,” the indictment clearly charges her under the “found in” prong of Section 1326. See United States v.

Jeffrey Dock v. Ruth Rush

432 F. App'x 130 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 2011

Here, the Appellants have sued Snyder County, Pennsylvania, which is clearly a “local agency” under the Act and is, therefore, immune from suit. … Moreover, the individual Appellees are also immune from suit under the Act.

United States v. Chaka Fattah, Sr.

902 F.3d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 9, 2018

In light of the erroneous instructions, and because only one category clearly qualifies as an “official act,” the jury’s deliberations were fraught with the potential for McDonnell error. … This was established.

C.H. v. Oliva

226 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 28, 2000

At this stage it is sufficient that the complaint states a live claim for some form of relief -- and it clearly does. Nor is the issue whether Pratt or Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity. … And of course the qualified immunity defense would not apply to the school board in its official capacity. Owen v.

Jackson v. University of Pittsburgh

826 F.2d 230 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 19, 1987

Pitt’s Discharge of Jackson Appellees make no contention that Jackson has failed to establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas method of proof. … Bellissimo proved pretext was “clearly erroneous because [she] failed to make any showing of disparate treatment and because [defendant] proved that its male attorneys were treated the same as she in the disputed areas”).

Obale v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 2006

The threshold for establishing eligibility for withholding of removal is higher than that for establishing entitlement to asylum and requires the alien to demonstrate a “clear probability” that, upon removal to the country … An applicant who does not qualify for asylum necessarily does not qualify for withholding of 14 removal. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 561 n.4 (3d Cir. 2004).