Case law

Mary Jane Kelly, in No. 89-1578 v. Matlack, Inc., in No. 89-1536

903 F.2d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 29, 1990

Kelly argues that the affidavits clearly establish that it will be necessary to compensate attorneys at twice the normal hourly rate in order to attract competent counsel because some contingency fee cases will result in … In order to qualify for an enhancement, a plaintiff must establish that without adjustment, it “ ‘would have faced substantial difficulties in finding counsel in the ... relevant market/ ” Blum I, 829 F.2d at 379 (quoting

Erie Sand and Gravel Company, a Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission

291 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 29, 1961

In these circumstances, the functional interchangeability of pit and bank sand with lake sand was overwhelmingly established. … Thus, the question of what can economically be sold — -the “line of commerce” question — • and the question where it can be sold— the “section of the country” question— will often be so related that the answer to each qualifies

Miller Ex Rel. MM v. Mitchell

598 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 17, 2010

U.S. 452, 454 (1974) (where “a state prosecution has been threatened, but is not pending,” federal declaratory relief is available). 12 application . . . of Younger abstention w[ould be] clearly … Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000), and is well-established by long-standing Supreme Court precedent. See Meyer v.

News America Marketing In-store Services, LLC v. Floorgraphics, Inc.

576 F. App'x 111 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 13, 2014

When FGI entered into the Release, FGI clearly knew of Henderson’s testimony and contemplated that it was not truthful. FGI believed that Henderson was the NAM hacker. … Even if we were to follow Acton , however, it would not establish our appellate jurisdiction over the cross-appeal.

Andrea Patricia Duvall, (Nee Andrea Patricia Phillips) v. Attorney General of the United States

436 F.3d 382 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 7, 2006

To apply the doctrine in a case such as this, where a clearly deportable alien continues to commit criminal acts after initial proceedings are terminated, would frustrate this statutory purpose. … This prospective immunization against removal is plainly contrary to congressional intent.

Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of R.M.L., Inc. (In re R.M.L. Inc.)

92 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 1996

Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the Committee has established that Mellon failed to confer reasonably equivalent value.... ” Id. at 469 . c. … We also acknowledge that whether a contemplated investment provided a significant “chance” to receive value more often than not will be bound up in the bankruptcy court’s factual determinations and, thus, largely immune from

Roger Dale Smith v. Odom Offshore Surveys, Inc., Defendant/third-Party and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Alvarez-Donnaway-Passons, Inc., Third-Party and National Union Fire Insurance Co., Third-Party

791 F.2d 411 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 1986

This finding of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). … Upon a review of the entire record, we cannot conclude that the district court's finding that Smith was a seaman is clearly erroneous. 15 The test for seaman status under the Jones Act is well-established in this Circuit.

National Labor Relations Board v. New Vista Nursing & Rehabilitation

719 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 16, 2013

Now that we have established what ―the Recess of the Senate‖ does not mean, we must establish what it does mean. … See 279 U.S. at 679 (“There is nothing whatever to justify changing this meaning by inserting the word „legislative‟ as a qualifying adjective.”); id. at 680 (“The word „adjournment‟ is not qualified by the word „final‟;

United States v. Navarro

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 14, 2007

Stat. § 3502(a) (requiring proof of entry in a building, but not possession of a firearm, to establish burglary), with 18 U.S.C. § 922(I) (requiring proof of possession of a firearm, but not entry into a building, to establish … The standard is clearly met when the defendant trades a firearm for drugs, the Court concluded, because without the firearm “the deal would not [be] possible.” Id.; see also United States v.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Douglas

812 F.2d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 1987

Defendant removed the case to the federal district court, which concluded after the jury returned a guilty verdict that the defendant had a valid immunity defense. … Whether the sentence under § 559.225 is imposed consecutively or concurrently, it is clearly “over and above” that imposed for the basic felony.

United States v. Calvin G. Thomas, Charles C. Copney, Wendell Ronald Charles, Calvin George Thomas

998 F.2d 1202 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 7, 1993

The brief questions about the existence of the guilty pleas was clearly relevant as bearing on the witnesses’ credibility.” Halbert, 640 F.2d at 1005 . … Moreover, Toner merely states that a guilty plea of a witness cannot be used to establish the guilt of the defendant.

S.H. Ex Rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion School District

729 F.3d 248 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 5, 2013

Section 504 of the RA provides: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability … Section 202 of the ADA similarly states: [N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Delaware Department of Health & Social Services

865 F.2d 1408 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 13, 1989

Since the appellees bore the burden of proof on this issue, their motion was properly granted only if the record shows that they established the defense so clearly that no rational jury could have found to the contrary. 9 … of their clients can be avoided if the departure is by a written stipulation or one clearly recorded.”

Linwood Wilkerson v. Charles Samuels

614 F. App'x 599 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 23, 2015

had qualified immunity. … As a result, Wilkerson cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether retaliation caused the adverse consequences he suffered, and the District Court correctly granted summary judgment to Smoker on this

Veronica Cox, Administratrix of the Estate of William D. Cox, in No. 74-1609 v. Dravo Corporation, in No. 74-1576

517 F.2d 620 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 29, 1975

cure was made because the owner of the vessel had paid maintenance at the rate of $47.50 per week from June 28, 1964, the date of plaintiff’s injuries until December 7, 1966, almost a year after the jury verdict which had established … by the United States are limited to the remedies provided by the Federal Employees Compensation Act, since the United States, unlike private shipowners can be sued only upon its own terms under the doctrine of sovereign immunity

United States v. Gathon Shannon

766 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 2014

Shannon’s counsel clearly objected and said, “Fifth Amendment comment.” … Doyle does not establish a threshold quantity of improper questioning to qualify as a constitutional violation.

United States v. Paul Oscar Pompey

445 F.2d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 1971

In sum, in order to qualify for a ministerial exemption, the registrant must satisfy the following tripartite test: (1) he must show a regularity of religious preaching and teaching; (2) the ministry must be his main and … Each registrant “bears the burden of clearly establishing” that he has satisfied all the criteria for the exemption and is thus a minister in the statutory sense. Dickinson v.

Bao Ying Chen v. Attorney General of United States

307 F. App'x 708 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 22, 2009

To qualify for asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant must establish that she has a well-founded fear that she will be persecuted if removed to her home country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership … to qualify it as an alternative holding, and we will not treat it as such. .

Ernest L. Anderson v. Robert E. Haas, Joseph Wert and the State of New Jersey. Ernest L. Anderson v. Robert E. Haas, Joseph Wert and the State of New Jersey. Robert E. Haas and Joseph Wert

341 F.2d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 12, 1965

constitutional rights, make an independent examination of the facts, the findings, and the record so that it can determine for itself whether in the decision as to reasonableness the fundamental-- i.e., constitutional-- criteria established … N.J.S.A. 2A:170-30 (loitering or creating a disturbance while under the influence of intoxicating liquor), he was convicted and sentenced, but appealed successfully on the ground that his conviction had been based on a clearly

Kaita v. Attorney General of the United States

522 F.3d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 3, 2008

Withholding of Removal In order to qualify for withholding of removal, 7 a petitioner must establish a “clear probability,” that is, that “it is more likely than not” that her life or freedom would be threatened if returned … She never said she “believed” it was the 25th, as the IJ characterized Kai-ta’s testimony; rather she clearly stated that when she was out of pain, she was at the hospital on January 25th.