Case law

James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Dept. Of Labor v. William Fiore, Ind. And D/B/A Fiore Trucking Company and William Fiore Contracting Company, the United States v. In Re William Fiore, Individually and Doing Business as Fiore Trucking and William Fiore Contracting Company

470 F.2d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 12, 1972

In the present case, the $10,000. fine, although labled by the district court as "remedial," was neither coercive nor compensatory; rather, it was clearly punitive. … I find no more explicitness contained in the language of Sec. 1983 to qualify it as an exception to Sec. 2283, than is present in the clear and unambiguous language of Sec. 216 (a)

Gary Rock v. Franklin County

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 3, 2021

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the Clerk was protected by immunity and that Rock did not establish a claim for municipal liability against Franklin County. (ECF 21.) … This claim clearly lacks merit. Franklin County cannot be liable for any court policy because the court is a Commonwealth institution outside the control of the County.4 See Haybarger v. Lawrence Cty.

United States v. Peter A. Murphy

323 F.3d 102 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2003

This is because Panarella and Antico address the different issue of what types of fiduciary duties are required, within the meaning of honest services, when either state or federal law already clearly establishes a fiduciary … Here, in contrast, the Government cannot identify any clearly established fiduciary relationship or legal duty in either federal or state law between Murphy and Passaic County or its citizens.

James H. JONES, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services

954 F.2d 125 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 16, 1991

Based as it was on substantial evidence in the record, the AU’s conclusion regarding Jones’s ability to return to his former employment was not clearly erroneous. E. … Heckler, 802 F.2d 680 (3d Cir.1986), that the Secretary must consider a claimant’s age when determining whether the claimant qualifies for disability benefits.

Thelma DAVIS v. UNITED STATES STEEL SUPPLY, DIVISION OF UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Appellant

688 F.2d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 1982

The court focused on the issue of discriminatory discharge, but clearly indicated in its opinion that it understood that there were also broader charges of racial discrimination in the case. … jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: * * * * * * To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity

Todd Schutzeus v. Pennsylvania Board of Prob

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 6, 2022

Eleventh Amendment immunity protects a state or a state agency from suit unless Congress has specifically abrogated the state’s immunity or the state has waived its immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. … “Under Pennsylvania law, even unauthorized acts may be within the scope of employment ‘if they are clearly incidental to the master’s business.’” See Brumfield, 232 F.3d at 381 (citation omitted).

Butler County Memorial Hospital v. Heckler

780 F.2d 352 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 1985

central nursing station, as was possible in the 10-bed ICU, nearly every occupied MCU bed was monitored continuously by telemetry equipment. 4 20 Moreover, the hospital refers to the fact that the MCU met all SCU requirements established … These rulings were clearly erroneous.

Joshua Hampton v. G Jones

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 3, 2022

The Magistrate Judge asserted that the Bivens claims are not cognizable and/or failed on their merits and, in any event, that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity.

BRADFORD-WHITE CORPORATION, Appellant in 88-1781 v. ERNST & WHINNEY; BRADFORD-WHITE CORPORATION, v. ERNST & WHINNEY, Appellant in 88-1828

872 F.2d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 14, 1989

Clearly, there is a way to harmonize the answer to 1(g) with the remainder of the answers. … Here, Ernst & Whinney simply did not attempt to establish this affirmative defense before or at trial.

Cavert Acquisition Co., D/B/A Cavert Wire Company v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Cavert Acquisition Co., D/B/A Cavert Wire Company

83 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 2, 1996

In the 1970's the Board's own internal guidelines also clearly endorsed the rebuttable presumption test. … Clearly, Cavert cannot establish an affirmative termination simply by showing a lack of communication between the parties.

Unity Real Estate Company, No. 97-3234 v. Marty D. Hudson Michael H. Holland Thomas O.S. Rand Elliott A. Segal Carlton R. Sickles Gail R. Wilensky William P. Hopgood Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Thomas F. Connors Robert Wallace Trustees of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan United States of America (Intervenor in District Court), Ltv Corporation (Ltv), Nacco Industries, Inc. (Nacco) Amicus Curiae. Barnes and Tucker Company, No. 97-3236 v. Marty D. Hudson, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund and Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan Michael H. Holland, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund and Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan Thomas O.S. Rand, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Elliott A. Segal, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carlton R. Sickles, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Gail R. Wilensky, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund William P. Hopgood, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Thomas F. Connors, Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan Robert G. Wallace, Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan United States of America (Intervenor in the District Court), Ltv Corporation (Ltv), Nacco Industries, Inc. (Nacco) Amicus Curiae

178 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 29, 1999

Yet small businesses, even businesses that have suffered from the eroding pressures of time and economic change, cannot be immune from reasonable government regulation simply because that regulation has harsh effects. … Furthermore, one day of work would not qualify a miner for benefits under the statute, since a miner must work for twenty years in the industry or be disabled in the course of employment to qualify for benefits.

Eichorn v. At&T Corp.

484 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 2, 2007

Crowley was not qualified to offer a damages opinion here. As the plaintiffs concede, Mr. … [s]o, while reinstatement is clearly equitable as a form of injunctive relief, back pay seems to be just as clearly legal.")

United States v. Amanda Mitchell, AKA Amanda Foster, Amanda Mitchell

122 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 9, 1997

We review the district court’s findings of fact regarding drug quantity to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. United States v. … We cannot find that the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous. III. For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.

Anthony v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.

611 F.2d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 27, 1979

The 1959 plan did not qualify under the Internal Revenue Code, and Byrns therefore substituted a different plan in 1962 (the 1962 plan), which did qualify under the tax code. … Anthony, received the following letter from Lawrence Smith, a trustee of both the 1959 and the 1962 plans: 4 It has become necessary in order To continue the Company's retirement program to discontinue the pension trust established

Damian Syblis v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 18, 2014

That is clearly not the case here. Va. … 147 (because the record was silent as to whether the noncitizen sold or exchanged marijuana, court could not definitively conclude that his conviction for criminal sale of marijuana constituted drug trafficking crime that qualified

In Re Paul Chris Gianakas, Debtor. Karen Gianakas v. Paul Chris Gianakas

917 F.2d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 1990

As the court noted in In re Yeates, 807 F.2d 874, 878 (10th Cir.1986), “a debt could be in the ‘nature of support’ under section 523(a)(5) even though it would not legally qualify as alimony or support under state law.” … Moreover, although the decree or settlement establishing the obligation almost invariably arises in the context of a state court proceeding, whether the obligation is in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support for the

United States v. Paul Hill

655 F.2d 512 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 25, 1981

This appeal raises the question of the admissibility and proper use of expert psychological testimony in an entrapment defense to establish a defendant’s unique susceptibility to inducement. … The second and third items of testimony are not clearly distinguished in the offer and may well have contributed to the court’s misapprehension of the nature of the offer.

Smriko v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 26, 2004

Stat. §§ 3929(a) & 3925(a), established principles of deference.” respectively, and was assessed costs and Wang v. … De be terminated through a specific statutory Leon-Reynoso clearly controls this case.

Albert J. Gaiardo and Patricia Gaiardo, His Wife v. Ethyl Corporation, A/K/A Ethyl Corporation, Visqueen Division

835 F.2d 479 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 1987

On appeal, defendant contends that the district court abused its discretion in failing to award sanctions because the plaintiff’s claim clearly was not warranted under settled Pennsylvania law. … The employees have achieved limited success in securing permanency to their positions or in establishing just cause for discharge.

United States v. Davis

39 F. App'x 702 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2002

On appeal, Davis attacks his conviction, arguing that the District Court committed reversible error when it denied his request for discovery to establish that he was the victim of selective prosecution. … Noting that Davis had been arrested eight times and was “clearly a danger to society,” the District Court sentenced him to 76 months in prison. App. at 45-46. A.