Case law

Bolden v. Pennsylvania State Police

578 F.2d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 1978

The finding of the FOP’s participation is clearly supported by the evidence of record — in particular by the evidence of what transpired at the April 20, 1974 meeting. … A stipulated detailed timetable has already been established.

Business Ass'n of University City v. Landrieu

660 F.2d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 1981

Those factual determinations may only be overturned if they are clearly erroneous. … It must be remembered that the agency most qualified to make coordinated decisions of future land utilization — the local zoning agency— must approve each project before construction begins.

B & G Construction Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

662 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 26, 2011

clearly permissible.” … But what a widow does not have to do is establish that the miner died from pneumoconiosis. .

Tucker Industrial Liquid Coatings, Inc. v. Borough of East Berlin

656 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 2016

The District Court concluded that Tucker did not state a substantive due process violation under this matrix, and thus found that Appellees were “entitled to the full protections of the doctrine of qualified immunity.” … Here, however, Tucker’s mere inclusion of the phrase “personal and political animus” in the Complaint is clearly insufficient.

Murphy v. Bendig

232 F. App'x 150 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 27, 2007

The District Court also concluded that Bendig was shielded from liability by qualified immunity. Because we do not find an underlying constitutional violation, we do not reach that issue. See Donahue v. … The District Court’s conclusion that 5 appellants’ arrest, imprisonment and prosecution were supported by probable cause is clearly correct.

Shell Oil Co. v. Federal Power Commission

334 F.2d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 1964

These arguments are clearly without merit. … This argument is without merit and the cases cited in support of it are clearly inapposite.

Larry Gene Hull v. Robert M. Freeman Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Attorney General

932 F.2d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 10, 1991

To demonstrate prejudice, Hull had to establish a reasonable probability that the result of the July, 1979 competency hearing would have been different but for his counsel's errors. … This rule stems from the well-established principle of federalism that a state conviction resting on an “adequate and independent” state ground is immune from direct review in federal courts.

Dorf & Stanton Communications, Inc. v. Molson Breweries

100 F.3d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 10, 1997

Failure to Establish Privilege 26 We have reviewed documents (A), (B), and (C) and are not convinced that Judge Patterson clearly abused his discretion when he ordered them produced. … Conclusion 30 We cannot say that the district court clearly abused its discretion in determining after in camera review that Dorf & Stanton's documents are not privileged.

In Re: W.R. Grace & Co v.

729 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 4, 2013

Early in the Chapter 11 proceedings, Grace sought to establish a bar date for property damage claims and a process for handling related litigation. … AMH contends that Grace cannot meet its burden without establishing the amount of liability the Plan will need to satisfy in the future.

Berger v. Edgewater Steel Co.

911 F.2d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 1990

Thus, there was no constructive discharge, and the Employees have not established a prima facie case under § 510. 17 VIII. … The district court was clearly correct in holding that § 514(a) preempts the Employees’ misrepresentation claims, since they relate to an employee benefit plan. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v.

National Sea Clammers Association v. City Of New York

616 F.2d 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 5, 1980

Although section 505(a) of the Act permits suits by private attorneys general who have suffered no direct economic harm, the statute clearly was intended to protect this particular class of actually injured persons as well … It is established in this circuit and elsewhere that there is no constitutional right to a pollution-free environment. See, e.g., Township of Long Beach v.

United States v. Wayne Bryant

655 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 25, 2011

But they are incorrect that the instruction failed to state clearly those legal requirements. … His responsibilities included “attendance in court [and] representation of [children] in board, support matters, paternity establishments and related duties.”

United States v. Colorado & Eastern Railroad Company, Farmland Industries, Inc., and Maytag Corporation, McKesson Corporation v. Gary W. Flanders Great Northern Transportation Company, Third-Party

50 F.3d 1530 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 17, 1995

ENSCO, Inc., 969 F.2d 503 , 509 (7th Cir.1992). 5 "Of course, the burden of proof is on the ... party seeking apportionment to establish that it should be granted." H.R.Rep. … B. 31 The CERC parties claim that they are immune from contribution claims under Sec. 113(f)(1) because they settled their liability with the United States in a judicially approved consent decree pursuant to Sec. 113(f)(2

United States v. Jose Ortiz-Vega

744 F.3d 869 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 12, 2014

With the relevant upward and downward adjustments already established, this would lead to a Guideline range of 78-97 months rather than 97-121 months for Ortiz-Vega. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. … The final decision as to whether to grant a sentence modification is a discretionary decision for the district court, even if a defendant qualifies for a modification under § 3582(c)(2).

Tippins Incorporated v. Usx Corporation

37 F.3d 87 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1994

To succeed under either section, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant is a responsible party. See Lansford-Coaldale Water Auth. v. Tonolli Corp., 4 F.3d 1209, 1219 (3d Cir.1993). … SINGER, SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Sec. 47.33 (4th ed. 1985) (stating that "referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent").

Weiss v. York Hospital

745 F.2d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 27, 1984

Thus the referring D.O. lost the patient not just for purposes of the immediate treatment at York, but for purposes of subsequent medical care which the D.O. was qualified to provide. 10 Additionally, the evidence established … This conclusion is not clearly erroneous. Cf. Zenith Radio Corp. v.

In Re: Gen Datacomm

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 18, 2005

DataComm’s position is that the Long Term Care Benefits did not qualify as “retiree benefits” since they were payable during Appellees’ employment. … We, too, express no opinion on this matter, as it has clearly been waived.

Diamond Bros. Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

322 F.2d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 1963

complains, since the respondent offered no testimony on its behalf except by way of agreeing to a stipulation of facts, that the Tax Court’s findings are contrary to what it considers the undisputed testimony its witnesses established … Only a bona fide debt qualifies for'purposes of Section 166.

Ahmed Bakran v. Secretary United States Depart

894 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 5, 2018

the “no risk” requirement to mean that to avoid denial of a petition, “a petitioner who has been convicted of a specified offense against a minor must submit evidence of rehabilitation and any other relevant evidence that clearly … scope of power allowed or granted . . . by law”). 7 presumption of denial, per the Neufeld Memo, were not arbitrary and capricious, id. at 598-99; and (3) the Aytes and Neufeld Memos qualify

Mary Lango, Widow of Andrew F. Lango v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Respondent/party-In-Interest

104 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 1997

Lango failed to establish that her husband’s pneumoconiosis was a contributing cause of his death. … As the ALJ stated, “An assertion which does not explain how the doctor reached the opinion expressed or contain his reasoning does not qualify as a reasoned medical opinion.” App. at 13.