Case law

William Fitzgerald v. Mountain Laurel Racing, Inc., Kenneth Marshall and John Knight, Presiding Judge

607 F.2d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 26, 1979

The test announced in Burton was simply that when the State has not clearly directed the private act of discrimination but where the private enterprise has a “symbiotic” relationship with the State, state action is present … Second, Lightcap expressly declined to consider whether a qualified exhaustion rule should be adopted in this Circuit in cases of alleged deprivation of property rights without due process of law. Id. at 1231-32 .

United States v. James Carroll Beckett

208 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 2000

There was clearly sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury could rely to reach its verdicts. I. … Clearly, they instilled fear in all those who saw them, and provoked a police response. They therefore qualify as dangerous weapons under Section 2113(d). See United States v. Hamrick, 43 F.3d 877, 882-83 (4th Cir.)

Trustees of the Aftra Health Fund v. Richard Biondi, Third-Party Plaintiff-Defendant-Appellant v. Thomas C. O'brien, Selma D'souza, O'Brien & Barbahen, a Partnership, Third-Party

303 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 7, 2002

The Plan is established and maintained according to the Agreement and Declaration of Trust of the AFTRA Health and Retirement Funds ("Trust Agreement"). … ERISA established a comprehensive federal statutory program intended to control abuses associated with pension benefit plans....

United States v. Craig William Brownlee

454 F.3d 131 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 18, 2006

These facts notwithstanding, the totality of the circumstances establish that the identifications were reliable. … The District Court adopted the Government’s position in toto, stating: Clearly, the defendant was in custody when he was in the back of the police car.

United States v. Marc Harris

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 29, 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.

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.”

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).

United States v. Mornan

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 2005

The District Court initially ruled that the statement did not qualify under Rule 803(5). The Government alternatively argued that the statement was admissible as a prior inconsistent statement under Fed. R. … Under a mandatory Guidelines system, this would clearly constitute a violation of Mornan’s rights under the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738.

Sheckells v. Attorney General of the United States

384 F. App'x 101 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 11, 2010

That provision clearly implicates Sheckells’ drug conviction. … We review the Agency’s legal conclusions de novo, subject to established principles of deference. See Smriko v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 279, 282 (3d Cir.2004).

Gordon v. Robinson (Gordon, Third-Party Defendant)

210 F.2d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 13, 1954

On cross-examination plaintiff adduced testimony that he, plaintiff, had made gas fittings at other places besides defendant’s establishment. … The legislative history of the'Business Records Act clearly shows that it was not the intent of the draftsmen to make admissible all ■ evidence, no matter how incompetent or irrelevant, merely by virtue of the fact that it

Evelyn Hillier, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Henry Hillier, Deceased v. Southern Towing Company, Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant v. United States of America, Third-Party-Defendant-Appellee. In the Matter of the Complaint of Memphis Towing Company, a Corporation, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability

714 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 1983

A government contract to indemnify the stevedore for liability over $250,000 might be enforceable under the Tucker Act, but was speculative until the stevedore's liability to the lighterman and others were definitely established … The result reached is clearly correct, and I point particularly to the stress laid by that court upon the statutory authority by which the inspector was performing his duties on shipboard: law making his case entirely unlike

Warren Bircher, Sr. v. James Pierce

610 F. App'x 194 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 12, 2015

If the corrected affidavit establishes probable cause, then summary judgment is proper. Id. … immunity, derivative absolute prosecutorial immunity, and collateral estoppel. 8

Timothy A. Slagle v. County of Clarion Clarion County Jail

435 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 2006

It applied the framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and held that Slagle had failed to establish a prima facie case. … NCAA, 346 F.3d 402 , 431 n. 24 (3d Cir.2003) (“We recognize that [ ]Title VII is clearly remedial civil rights legislation.... ”); Idahoan Fresh v.

Reese v. Finley

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 3, 2007

For example, Finley testified: “It looked like [passing Reese and her companion] was clearly going to be easy,” “I clearly had enough time to pass,” and “I still had room to pass.” … However, Appellants can establish that the Boardwalk is too narrow only if we consider the activities permitted on it.

Erick Zanetich v. WalMart Stores East Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 9, 2024

Coleman involved a New Jersey statute immunizing licensed clinical social workers from suit. Id. at 647. … It concluded, “Had the legislature intended to confer immunity on licensed 11 social workers, it would have stated so, and if the failure to provide immunity to social workers was an oversight

United States v. DeMichael

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2006

. § 1291. 3 that an appeal of any portion of the judgment qualifies DeMichael for wholesale abatement of his conviction and any remaining punishment. … In his brief, DeMichael clearly stated that the only issue he was appealing was the propriety of the fine.4 Thus, he waived his right to appeal his conviction. See Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am. v.

Pauline Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security

294 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 2002

The Appeals Council denied Thomas’s request for review, establishing the ALJ’s decision as the final decision of the Secretary. … In the words of the dissent, the statutory language is “perfectly clear,” it “permits no other conclusion,” it “clearly mandates” the result reached by the dissent, and its meaning is “plain.” Id.

Hirst v. Inverness Hotel Corp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 2008

The plain language of Rule 701 establishes that lay opinion testimony must satisfy the criteria set forth in subsections (a), (b), and (c) in order to be admissible. … Not having been qualified as an expert in security (or in any other area for that matter), Bravo should not have been permitted to offer such an opinion.

State Auto Ins. Companies v. Summy

234 F.3d 131 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 1, 2000

II. 28 Clearly, the case at hand falls outside the area outlined by Brillhart and Wilton as appropriate for the District Court to exercise its jurisdiction. … When the state law is firmly established, there would seem to be even less reason for the parties to resort to the federal courts.

Darryl Williams v. Jani King of Philadelphia Inc

837 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 21, 2016

It did argue to the District Court that the Plaintiffs failed to establish typicality and adequacy. … In turn, the approach I set out here does not grant franchisors any sort of immunity from either possible vicarious liability or generally applicable employment laws like the WPCL.