Case law

United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 1165 v. Lukens Steel Company, Division of Lukens, Inc

969 F.2d 1468 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 31, 1992

Lukens contends that this language clearly and unambiguously precludes the employees from grieving their discharges. … Therefore, the affidavits do not qualify as “strong and forceful” evidence of an intention to exclude the grievances from arbitration.

United States v. David Husmann

765 F.3d 169 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 3, 2014

He argued that the government’s evidence was insufficient to establish that he was the person who uploaded the files in question, since the four other people who lived with him had easy access to the computer and flash drive … In fact, “any act ... related to the transfer of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor” qualifies as “distribution” under § 2G2.2(b)(3). Id. (emphasis added).

Season-All Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

654 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 1981

The record clearly discloses that Season-All’s initial objection to the election asserted that Sadler was an agent of the union. Paragraph four of Season-All’s objection reads 4. … Further, the record fails to establish that the computer programmers are engaged in other than pure programming activities.

PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED v. Willard S. HARTMANN, Leona R. Hartmann, Appellants

921 F.2d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 31, 1990

“Eligible” is defined as “fitted or qualified to be chosen or used” or “worthy to be chosen or selected.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 736 (1966). … Indeed, because the relevant federal and Pennsylvania case law is so clearly established and has evolved essentially in unison, we will refer to them interchangeably where helpful. .

MRL Development I, LLC v. Whitecap Investment Corp.

823 F.3d 195 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 2016

The appellants’ contract claim is clearly time-barred as the breach of the contract occurred in December 2006, at the latest, when the last of the lumber was purchased from Paradise. … negligence and strict liability claims and alleged injuries arise solely from the allegation that the purchased lumber was not appropriately treated for use as building material in the Virgin Islands: a breach of a duty established

Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers, Local 420 and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Plaintiffs v. Oliver Traweek and Gene McFadden v. Gene True Edgar Smith Richard Martino Pete Gallegos Leo Pittman Arthur Webb and Clyde Craig, Third-Party-Defendants-Appellants. Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers, Local 420, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Richard Martino Edgar Smith and Gene True, and Oliver Traweek and Gene McFadden Defendants-Counterclaim-Third-Party

867 F.2d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 25, 1989

Rather, we conclude that the primary focus in Reis was on Congress' intent to immunize individual members from a Sec. 185 suit. See Evangelista v. Inlandboatmen's Union, 777 F.2d 1390, 1400 (9th Cir.1985). … United Steelworkers of America, 767 F.2d 1216 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1007 , 106 S.Ct. 530 , 88 L.Ed.2d 461 (1985). 44 This court's clearly established standard of review of a union's interpretation of its own

Lis v. Robert Packer Hospital

579 F.2d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 8, 1978

The committee expressly approves this discretion and believes it will permit sufficient flexibility allowing a broader scope of cross-examination whenever appropriate. 4 20 Clearly then, the Rule in its present form establishes … The latter also occurred in this case, and appellants have assigned as error the district court's decision to permit the defense to qualify Dr. Pacanowski as their witness at the conclusion of their cross examination.

Ferri v. Bell

645 F.2d 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 1, 1981

Assuming he could establish that such a deal was made, without his knowledge, Fer-ri might be entitled to a new trial. Under Brady v. … In order for the information to qualify for Exemption 7(E), then, it must satisfy two requirements: first, that the requested document is such an “investigatory record”, and secondly, that the technique it threatens to disclose

Miller v. Fortis Benefits Ins

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 2007

The policy establishes that the insured must be totally disabled for six months before benefits are payable. … Regarding the first requirement, an underpayment can qualify as a repudiation because a plan’s determination that a beneficiary receive less than his full entitlement is effectively a partial denial of benefits.

De Herrera v. Attorney General of the United States

357 F. App'x 498 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 21, 2009

However, nothing in the BIA’s decision indicates that it deviated from its established standards or required a showing from Ramos beyond that normally required to establish an "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” … The BIA clearly conducted its own analysis, and thus our review is limited to the BIA’s decision. .

De Herrera v. Attorney General of the United States

357 F. App'x 498 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 21, 2009

However, nothing in the BIA’s decision indicates that it deviated from its established standards or required a showing from Ramos beyond that normally required to establish an "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” … The BIA clearly conducted its own analysis, and thus our review is limited to the BIA’s decision. .

Johnathan Robins v. Michael F.X. Coll

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 9, 2013

It is well established in this Circuit that the right to proceed pro se in federal court does not give non-lawyer parents the right to represent their children in proceedings before a federal court. … Moreover, we agree that Judge Coll and Master Judge are protected by absolute judicial immunity.

Jasmine Shah v. United States

540 F. App'x 91 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 30, 2013

Here, the relationship between the Shahs and Janum is sufficiently close to qualify as privies, as Janum is wholly owned by the Shahs. … Qualifying relationships include, but are not limited to, preceding and succeeding owners of property. . . .” See Taylor v.

20 Employee Benefits Cas. 1537, Pens. Plan Guide P 23922o in Re New Valley Corporation, Debtor, Senior Executive Benefit Plan Participants Richard L. Callaghan Alexander J. Chisholm W. Lee Elkins Robert M. Flanagan Robert F. Garbarini Arthur A. Garman Walter Girardin Delmar Harmon J. William Harrington John P. Hunt John A. Hollansworth Gerald P. Kent D.D. Lloyd Russell W. Mc Fall John W.R. Pope, Jr. Herbet Salter, Estate of Steve Smiszko Phillip Schneider Bernard Weitzer v. New Valley Corporation, Senior Executive Benefit Plan Participants and Walter E. Girardin, Alexander J. Chisholm, S.E. Smiszko, John A. Hunt, Arthur Garman, Gerald P. Kent, Delmar Harmon, Robert R. Garbarini, Walter L. Elkins, Walter E. Girardin, Philip Schneider, J. William Harrington, John A. Hollansworth, Bernard Weitzer, John W.R. Pope, Jr., Robert M. Flanagan, Douglas D. Lloyd, H.E. Salter/barbara Orr Salter, Richard L. Callaghan, and Russell W. McFall

89 F.3d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 1996

Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 991 F.2d 1089 , 1094 (3d Cir.1993). 3 Our precedents clearly establish the steps involved in resolving a contractual ambiguity. 27 To decide whether a contract is ambiguous, we do not simply … (c) Dental benefits will be provided at no cost to [qualified participants]." App. at 33-34 (emphasis added).

Suopys v. Omaha Prop & Cslty

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 15, 2005

. §§ 4001-4129, established the NFIP. … If the insured qualifies for Increased 12  Suopys suggests that the above-quoted SFIP which became effective December 30, 2000 (65 Fed.

In the Matter of Resyn Corporation. Resyn Corporation v. United States

945 F.2d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 7, 1991

Alternatively, Resyn argues that the proof of claim does not qualify as a notice and demand under 26 U.S.C. § 6303 (a). A. … Thus, the IRS clearly has not complied with the notice requirements of section 6303(a).

Siemens USA Holdings Inc v. Richard Geisenberger

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 4, 2021

It dismissed all claims against the State of Delaware, with prejudice, on the basis of sovereign immunity. … “When the claimed injury ‘is the process itself,’ in the manner it is here, then the interests of the parties are clearly adverse.” Marathon Petroleum, 876 F.3d at 499 (citation omitted).

Lawrence v. City of Philadelphia, Pa.

527 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 28, 2008

It was the City’s burden to demonstrate that it met all three requirements necessary to qualify for the exemption. … Nevertheless, the court clearly construed a portion of that statute. .

Wilson v. PA St Pol

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 8, 2002

waives sovereign immunity for Rehabilitation Act claims against the department or agency -- but only against that department or agency." … were, therefore, on notice that by accepting federal funds they would waive Eleventh Amendment immunity to Rehabilitation Act claims.

Huber v. Casablanca Industries, Inc.

916 F.2d 85 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 1990

It clearly provided for interest in other sections of MPPAA.... … It clearly provided for the accrual of interest in other sections of MPPAA.”