Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,730 results
2.15s
George Kersey v. Becton Dickinson Co
433 F. App'x 105 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 24, 2011
Accordingly, under New Jersey’s defamation law, Kersey was required to establish “(1) the assertion of a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) the unprivileged publication of that statement to a third … Kersey’s third-party beneficiary claim was clearly baseless, and the District Court correctly sanctioned Kersey for his pursuit of the claim. See Doering v. Union Cnty.
Cited 6 timesUnpublishedUnited States ex rel. Mistick PBT v. Housing Authority
186 F.3d 376 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1999
For the reasons already explained, HUD’s search for the documents sought under the FOIA and its decision to disclose them clearly satisfied our court’s interpretation of the term “administrative,” and we believe that these … The dissent writes that “it may be easier for the relator to establish himself as an ‘original source’ of the information than to successfully disprove a caused link between the public disclosures and his qui tam claim.”
Cited 28 timesPublishedCommonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Navient Corp
967 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 27, 2020
They “may look behind a statute only when the plain meaning produces a result that is not just unwise but is clearly absurd.” … That the Consumer Protection Act allows for the Bureau to intervene does not clearly decide whether concurrent claims are permitted.
Cited 15 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 2018
Nonetheless, a police officer is “entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Goodwin, 836 F.3d at 326. … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s conduct.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublished398 F.3d 225 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2005
We must thus decide whether the state courts’ ’’adjudication of the claim ... resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the … The stark pattern here qualifies.
Cited 117 timesPublished523 F.2d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 1975
First, the court in its instructions quite clearly treated the two counts separately, and we must assume that the jury understood as much. … The court charged: “Plaintiffs’ witnesses 'Kenney, Mendelson, Davis, Lieblich and Gonzalez, all were qualified as expert witnesses.
Vacated on other grounds by Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977)Cited 46 timesPublishedJulio Freza v. Attorney General United States
49 F.4th 293 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 15, 2022
The IJ denied the motion to continue, finding that Freza had failed to establish good cause to continue the case. … Lastly, the BIA agreed that Freza failed to qualify for CAT deferral. This petition for review followed. II.
Cited 12 timesPublishedKollman v. Hewitt Associates, LLC
487 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 14, 2007
That figure, $522,043.30, had not been reduced by the amount of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) that was owing to Kollman’s former wife. … To establish a violation under that section, Kollman must establish that he made a written request to the plan administrator (here, the BAC) and that the administrator failed to respond within thirty days.
Cited 10 timesPublishedWilliam Bracey v. Superintendent Rockview SCI
986 F.3d 274 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 20, 2021
The standards for evaluating a 60(b) motion are well established. … Thus, while it had the effect of bringing our case law back in line with clearly established Supreme Court precedent, id., Dennis 27 reflected a significant change in our own jurisprudence
Cited 96 timesPublished333 F.2d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1964
Bach would not survive the five named legatees conclusively establishes that the Drexel bequest was not eligible for a charitable deduction under the Treasury Regulations “as of the date” of Mr. … Bach’s failure to make a bequest to Drexel qualifying for a charitable deduction, as of the date of his death, makes totally irrelevant the contention that Drexel received as an “inheritance” the distribution which was made
Cited 7 timesPublished789 F.2d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 21, 1986
However, the evidence at trial established at most that plaintiff was least qualified at the time of required reduction in force. … From the express language of the jury instructions, it is evident that the jury was clearly instructed to separate the questions of liability from willfulness.
Cited 0 timesPublishedRodolfo Vente Vente v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States
415 F.3d 296 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 2005
Discussion The Attorney General and his delegates may grant asylum to any alien who qualifies as a refugee under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1). … An applicant who has not established past persecution “bear[s] the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecution is by a government or is government-sponsored.”
Cited 82 timesPublishedIn the Matter of Connecticut Motor Lines, Inc., Bankrupt. John H. McKeever Trustee
336 F.2d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 1964
Thus, the language of Section 64, sub. a (4) clearly governs in such circumstances. … Such a tax claim by the Government is clearly entitled to Section 64, sub. a (4) treatment.
Disagreed with by In Re Freedomland, Inc., Bankrupt, 480 F.2d 184 (1973)Cited 32 timesPublished1975 Salaried Retirement Plan for Eligible Employees of Crucible, Inc. v. Nobers
968 F.2d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 6, 1992
Moreover, the Court has also unanimously held that “a federal law need not expressly authorize an injunction of a state court proceeding in order to qualify” under the “expressly authorized” exception. Mitchum v. … The test, rather, is whether an Act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding.
Cited 12 timesPublishedNational Labor Relations Board v. Phoenix Pipe & Tube, L.P.
955 F.2d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 17, 1991
However, we cannot say these dissimilarities qualify as a fundamental difference between the work environments at Phoenix Steel and PP & T. … Last, any evidence presented to establish a reasonable good-faith doubt must unequivocally indicate the loss of employee support. N.T. Enloe Mem.
Cited 1 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 2018
Nonetheless, a police officer is “entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Goodwin, 836 F.3d at 326. … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s conduct.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublished850 F.2d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1988
Even if the University were permitted to raise its APA defense, and establish that the EEOC rule was invalid, the University has not established how the EEOC could be prevented from enforcing a particular subpoena. … Our reading of the record establishes that both issues were raised in the district court.
Cited 283 timesPublished643 F.3d 102 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 29, 2011
In those circumstances, the “immediate availability of the gun” has the potential to facilitate such an in-person offense, and is sufficient to establish the necessary connection under § 2K2.1(b)(6). … See id. 23 that, where the predicate drug offense is possession, mere proximity is insufficient to establish the required nexus.
Cited 35 timesPublishedArio v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds
618 F.3d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 18, 2010
We hold only that the parties here did not clearly intend to apply PUAA vacatur standards to the resulting award. 34 C. … This qualifies, I believe, as the fallacy of non sequitur.19 Our Court has recently rejected just such an attempt to interpret a service-of-suit clause to mandate the form of dispute-resolution: “[s]ervice-of-suit clauses
Cited 108 timesPublished718 F.2d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 30, 1983
No suggestion is made that the findings described in this part are clearly erroneous. . … These contentions are: (1) that the district court erroneously denied total use immunity to an allegedly exculpatory witness for appellant; (2) that the district judge erred in failing to disqualify himself; (3) that the
Cited 42 timesPublished
Ask Donna