Case law

George Johnson v. Steven Pinchak Attorney General of the State of New Jersey

392 F.3d 551 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 22, 2004

Reed, supra, the Supreme Court established a “plain statement” rule that there would be no procedural default, for purposes of federal habeas review, unless “the last state court rendering judgment in the case ‘clearly and … To qualify for this exception, a petitioner “must show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have found him eligible for the death penalty in light of the new evidence.” Calderon v.

Cornelius Hill Trudie Hastings Hill, H/w v. Reederei F. Laeisz G.M.B.H., Rostock Schiffarhtsgesellschaft Ms Priwall Mbh & Co. Kg

435 F.3d 404 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 2006

Translating appellate opinions into jury instructions is a notoriously difficult undertaking, and we take note of the fact that the District Court clearly read and attempted to apply Kirsch . … Congress has made stevedores immune from suit in longshoremen’s injury cases, and that leaves the ship as the sole defendant.

Leinbach v. Fein

123 F. App'x 43 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 1, 2004

This record clearly supports the court’s finding of bad faith. In addition, Leinbach’s conduct clearly was objectively unreasonable. 1. … Fein would therefore not qualify under that category, either.

In Re Constar International Inc. Securities Litigation

585 F.3d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 29, 2009

The District Court’s Order was clearly sufficient. … Jarrell is a former Chief Economist of the SEC and is, presumably, as qualified as anyone could be to make that argument.

Albert Moore v. John Deyoung, Warden, Passaic County Jail, and Frank Davenport, Sheriff

515 F.2d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 1975

On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Indictment No. 1006-71 (impairing the morals of a minor) on the ground that the proofs required to establish the charge of “impairing” would coincide with those … We perceive nothing in the nature of the speedy trial right to qualify it as a per se “extraordinary circumstance.”

Atkinson v. Lafayette College

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2006

In it, Atkinson alleged that she was terminated and denied a faculty appeal based on her gender and Lafayette College’s pattern and practice of discharging qualified female administrative position with faculty rank and … This Court will assume, without deciding, that Atkinson established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Lucas Ivers v. Brentwood Borough School District

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 13, 2024

immunity. … Having made those conclusions, the Court did not reach whether Greer is entitled to qualified immunity but noted that it “would have been inclined” to conclude she is. App. 19; Ivers v. Brentwood Borough Sch.

Henry F. Plucinski v. I.A.M. National Pension Fund, Perth Amboy Dry Dock Co., Perth Amboy Management Pension Fund, William T. Harth, Alfred C. Bruggeman, John Doe and Richard Roe, Third Party v. District No. 15, International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Third Party Appeal of I.A.M. National Pension Fund, Perth Amboy Dry Dock Co.

875 F.2d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 1989

an ERISA qualifying pension plan. … If we put the burden of mistaken payments wholly on employers, we may discourage some employers from operating ERISA qualifying plans.

United States v. Certain Land In The City Of Newark, County Of Essex, State Of New Jersey

439 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 22, 1971

The defendant did not file an answer in which it could have either denied or qualified the statement of purported ownership. … finding in this regard. 9 The finding as to reasonable access is also not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Bender

206 F.2d 247 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 21, 1953

According to' the report the hearing officer required registrant to establish his exemption under the Act beyond a reasonable doubt. … Registrant was obliged to show clearly his exemption under the statute, but no more than that. Cf. United States ex rel. Bodenstein v. Nichols, 3 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 155 .

Tyrone Green v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

418 F. App'x 63 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 18, 2011

. § 1915(e), as these defendants are all immune from suit. Sovereign immunity bars this suit against the United States and the Commonwealth. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980); Edelman v. … The contours of Green’s claims are not clearly defined. However, the District Court properly concluded that he failed to state a claim for relief.

C. James Trotman v. Board Of Trustees Of Lincoln University

635 F.2d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 25, 1980

City of Independence, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1416 (1980), qualified immunity is sometimes granted because of "overriding considerations of public policy" but this does not affect the question of the legality of the underlying governmental … These are, however, within established limits, in truth necessary side effects of the broader enduring values which the process of open debate permits us to achieve.

Breyer v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 20, 2003

Consequently, a citizen might be able to satisfy the burden of establishing that an action was taken involuntarily—should other evidence not establish the contrary—by showing that it was compulsory. … from service to the Italian army, coupled with evidence that the plaintiff failed to invoke the immunity thus available to him.

Robin Chamberlain v. Vincent C. Giampapa, M.D., Individually and Dba Plastic Surgery Center Internationale

210 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 28, 2000

By requiring dismissal for failure to adhere to the statute, the New Jersey legislature clearly intended to influence substantive outcomes. … Thus, “proof of a risk recognized by the professional community must come from a qualified expert.” Id.

United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy

224 F.2d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 1955

The duty of this court to give consideration to the “totality of facts in a given ease” where the due process clause is invoked, was clearly spelled out by the Supreme Court of the United States in Betts v. … In conclusion I will dwell but briefly with the majority’s view that Judge Boyer’s conduct was an “occurrence — -in state procedure”, immune, as such, from the reach of the due process guarantee.

Wayne Prater v. Pennsylvania Department of Cor

76 F.4th 184 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2023

However, because magistrate judges derive their power from Article I of the Constitution (establishing the legislative branch), not Article III (establishing the judicial branch), the Act “limit[s] the circumstances” in which … Congress clearly prohibited magistrate judges from determining only the merits of such petitions.

Crawford v. Pope & Talbot, Inc. Lucibello v. Pope & Talbot, Inc.

206 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 3, 1953

Their work in the deep tanks was clearly “ship’s work” within the meaning of the Sieracki case. … Had one of those seamen been injured under circumstances, like those before us, he would clearly have been entitled to recover for unseaworthiness of the ship.

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Shire Viropharma, Inc.

917 F.3d 147 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 25, 2019

Shire also contended that its petitioning activity was immune from antitrust challenge pursuant to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. See E. R.R. Presidents Conference v. … The Court held that the fifteen-employee threshold went to the merits of the Title VII claim, explaining that Congress had not clearly delineated it as a jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 514–16.

Vernon Hill, II v. Cohen

40 F.4th 101 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 6, 2022

Federal courts have held that a variety of duties and responsibilities will qualify someone as a “receiver” under § 1292. Most clearly, a person who is appointed to liquidate a company is a receiver. E.g., Sriram v. … Some courts take an expansive view of what communications qualify as solicitations. E.g., Long Island Lighting Co. v.

Hamme v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co.

716 F.2d 152 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 12, 1982

As noted above, that section simply does not speak to the joinder of the employer in a manner that preserves his immunity from contribution. … Permitting the joinder of the employer in the action by the employee against the third party to establish the employer’s relative fault is the preferable means of establishing the relative fault of the parties.