Case law

Makashi v. Attorney General of the United States

336 F. App'x 276 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 14, 2009

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, concluding that the IJ’s determination that Makashi was not credible was not clearly erroneous, because the discrepancy between Dr. … Even if an asylum applicant does not show that he suffered from past persecution, he may still qualify for asylum if he shows that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.

United States v. Brian Holman

168 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 1999

So, in 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established enhanced sentences for offenses involving “cocaine base.” … He testified that, based on their testimony and his experience, the particular item referred to as being cocaine base would qualify as “crack” on the street.

Gwendolyn Howze v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

750 F.2d 1208 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 28, 1984

Howze believes that she was more qualified than the white woman who was promoted because she had been performing many of the duties of the Staff Assistant before the position was created. … The record is barren on this particular issue and, of course, J & L had the burden of clearly demonstrating on the record that no genuine issue of material fact existed. See Hicks v.

A&h Sportswear, Inc Mainstream Swimsuits, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, Inc

237 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 1, 2000

In order to qualify for Lanham Act protection, a mark must either be suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful, or must be descriptive with a demonstration of secondary meaning. See id. at 297. … Absent reverse confusion, “a company with a well established trade name and with the economic power to advertise extensively [would be immunized from suit] for a product name taken from a competitor.”

Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kramer

305 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 2002

In addition, as the Board also noted, the unequivocal opinions of Wecht and Reilly, on which the ALJ relied, explained clearly how pneumoconiosis hastened the ______________________________________________________________ … Competent evidence for the Claimant tends to establish that pulmonary burden from occupational pneumoconiosis hastened her husband’s death from cancer.

M. S. v. Susquehanna Twp Sch Dist

969 F.3d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 2020

Gebser did not clearly create an exception to damages liability when the perpetrator would otherwise be an appropriate person. … But M.S.’s characterization of Bostic cannot overcome the paucity of evidence tending to establish actual knowledge.

Prince v. Attorney General of the United States

390 F. App'x 189 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 2010

The BIA determined that the IJ did not clearly err in finding that Prince’s 1989 conviction constituted one involving a controlled substance. … The BIA reasoned as follows: It is the respondent’s burden to affirmatively establish his eligibility for relief.

A.A. v. Attorney General United States

973 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 2020

For withholding of removal, “an alien ‘must establish a clear probability, that is, that it is more likely than not that [his] life or freedom would be threatened if returned to [his] country’ because of his protected class … We asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing on how the exemption process works and why A.A. did not qualify for one. 34  Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), the Secretaries

Trade Waste Management Association, Inc. v. Hughey

780 F.2d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 15, 1986

The statute contains a grant of immunity from prosecution for compelled disclosures that would otherwise violate the privilege against self incrimination. … Clearly other grounds for disqualification would remain if, for example, the ground set forth in N.J.S.A. 13:1E-133(e) were to fall.

Feesers, Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc.

498 F.3d 206 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 2007

This is not clearly either a second-line or third-line case, but falls somewhere in between these categories. See George Haug Co. v. … Standard Oil Co., 395 U.S. 642 , 89 S.Ct. 1871 , 23 L.Ed.2d 599 (1969), there is no basis in the Act for immunizing price discrimination "simply because the product in question passed through an additional formal exchange

Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Associates

844 F.2d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 1988

Furthermore, because HRA and the Bank are joint obligors, HRA will not qualify as an indispensable party. … However, we note that many of the lingering questions we have about FAB’s right to intervene might have been cleared up had FAB set out its contentions clearly.

Carol Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc.

167 F.3d 146 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 3, 1999

To establish defective design and failure to warn, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's product caused her injuries. … Bellanti is qualified to testify regarding the nature of Ms. Cavallo's illnesses....

Corn Products Co. v. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Food & Drug Administration

427 F.2d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 14, 1970

Derby as the second leading producer had 14 per cent of the market from its product, Peter Pan. 6 Their product formulations fail to qualify under the standard since each uses in excess of ten per cent of optional ingredients … Com Products admits that addition and removal of peanut oil is an established practice.

United States v. Rose

365 F. App'x 384 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 18, 2010

The March 13 letter is obviously not an indictment and does not otherwise qualify as a formal charge. … Conclusion Because Rose has failed to establish that the government infringed upon his federal speedy trial guarantees, the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

United States v. William F. Helbling

209 F.3d 226 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 14, 2000

Clearly, sufficient evidence existed to establish that Susman and Sokolic had the requisite intent. … These acts are clearly probative of Hel-bling’s intent. Finally, Helbling contends that the government failed to establish that the plan was subject to ERISA.

Anthony Rivera v. City of Bethlehem

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 2021

Co., 145 F.3d 143, 156-57 (3d Cir. 1998)). 6 uniform Woolard wore; and (2) the sidewalk, clearly illumined by streetlights, on which Woolard approached. … We never purported to establish a per se rule in Batka. Nor have we applied one.30 Moreover, Batka is distinguishable on the facts.

Delores F. Turner Russell Turner v. Iowa Fire Equipment Company, an Iowa Corporation, - Iowa Fire Equipment Company, Third Party v. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. Third Party

229 F.3d 1202 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 9, 2000

He was clearly more concerned with identifying and treating Delores's condition than he was with identifying the specific substance that caused her condition. Dr. … If a properly qualified medical expert performs a reliable differential diagnosis through which, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, all other possible causes of the victims' condition can be eliminated, leaving

Izquierdo v. Attorney General of the United States

352 F. App'x 682 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 20, 2009

Analysis Izquierdo challenges the denial of withholding of removal. 2 To qualify for relief, Izquierdo bore the burden of demonstrating a “clear probability” of future persecution, by showing “it is more likely than not” … The BIA concluded that the IJ’s factfinding was not clearly erroneous, see BIA Decision, A.R. 4, and then appropriately applied the correct legal standard to those facts.

Sene v. Ashcroft

54 F. App'x 753 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

Sene urges us to conclude that the BIA erred when it held that he did not qualify for protection as a refugee because he was not persecuted for his political opinion by the MFDC. … However, this argument is clearly foreclosed by INS v.

United States v. Leo

941 F.2d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 1991

Here, the district court did not rule that Kennedy was qualified to give expert testimony. … Likewise, Leo did not establish Zippel’s qualification as someone particularly qualified to see through a fog of lies.