Case law

Demette v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc.

280 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 16, 2002

Once it inserts the qualifier "other than a ship or vessel"; once it does not. … But we disagree that en banc reversal of established circuit precedent is in order.

DiCarlo v. St Mary Hosp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

Judgment will only be granted where the moving party clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. … Relying on such a comparison, however, would directly contravene established New York law.

Jane A. Gagliardo John Gagliardo v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc.

311 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 22, 2002

Here, the PHRA, with its similar language and applicability, clearly provides a cause of action nearly identical to that of the ADA. … Hence, the jury was fully aware that the impairment itself did not establish a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

Verzeni v. Postmaster General

109 F. App'x 485 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 2004

At the end of the jury trial, the District Court ruled as a matter of law that Verzeni had established that he had a disability and was “otherwise qualified” to do his job. … clearly shows that, when Verzeni did not have these delusional thoughts, he performed the duties of his job satisfactorily.

In RE LEROY RICHARDS, Appellant

213 F.3d 773 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 31, 2000

Cir. 1998) ("There is no qualifying language in title 28 which limits the term 'all courts established by Act of Congress' to Article III courts or specifically excludes the Court of Veterans Appeals. … The ROA states: The relations between the courts established by the Constitution or laws of the United States and the courts established by local law with respect to appeals, certiorari, removal of causes, the issuance of

United States v. Amos Salmon, No. 90-3355, Raymond E. Washington, No. 90-3363, Richard Fitzpatrick, No. 90-3366, John Surratt, No. 90-3438

944 F.2d 1106 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 1991

This notion, however, is unsupported by any established fact. … Nor was the court’s determination of Surratt’s offense level clearly erroneous.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. City of Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania

842 F.2d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 1988

Under these facts, receipt of a legal opinion cannot immunize conduct that might otherwise be construed as a willful violation. … Thus, by requiring some link between age and the plan, our holding was consistent with congressional intent that only certain types of benefit plans qualify for the ADEA exemption in § 623(f)(2). In E.E.O.C. v.

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania Co.

129 F. 849 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 2, 1904

This was the establishment at that point of the things contracted for in the agreement. … It requires the constant exercise of judgment and skill by the officers of the corporation defendant; and, therefore, in a qualified sense, it may be *872 true that the case never is ended, but remains a permanent case in

Cecelia Watn, Administratrix and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of John Martin Watn, Deceased v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company and Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines, Cecelia Watn, Administratrix and Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of John Martin Watn, Deceased v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines

255 F.2d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 13, 1958

Seashore clearly is not entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. 10 We come next to the issues presented by the requests for new trials. … "It is a rule of law, members of the jury, in the trial in these cases here that if any document is to be given to the jury for their consideration it first has to be identified and then qualified as being admissible, the

United States v. Cicirello

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2002

The Court also ruled that Cicirello did not qualify for credit for acceptance of responsibility, but that issue has not been raised before us on appeal. … We can only conclude that Cicirello’s offense is within the "heartland" of S 2K2.1, clearly anticipated by its terms. See Uca, 867 F.2d at 787- 90.

Lewis v. Hyland

554 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 25, 1977

afford a federal right in federal courts because, by reason of prejudice, passion, neglect, intolerance or otherwise, state laws might not be enforced and the claims of citizens to the enjoyment of rights, privileges, and immunities … Kugler, 446 F.2d 1343 (3d Cir. 1971), clearly was in harmony with Justice Blackmun’s statements. 20 Plaintiffs’ proofs here are responsive to our directive in Lewis v.

Singh v. Attorney General

251 F. App'x 104 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 16, 2007

Asylum In order to be eligible for a grant of asylum, a petitioner must establish him or herself as a “refugee,” meaning a “person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality ... and who is unable or unwilling … The record clearly indicates that the IJ did not always address Singh in a respectful manner, and expressed a unwarranted level of irritation with Singh’s testimony.

United States v. Goldberg

349 F.2d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 1965

A receiver was appointed, but before he qualified by filing the required bond, libels were filed in the federal court of the Eastern District of New York to enforce maritime liens against six vessels of the company pursuant … June 26, 1964, and that in the oral argument before the District Court on July 29, 1964 “both counsel for the Bank (Docket Paper #54, p. 39) and counsel for the largest unsecured creditors (Docket Paper #54, pp. 32-37) clearly

United States v. Gary W. Jones

382 F.3d 403 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 27, 2004

. § 3553 (b) the sentencing court may impose a sentence outside the range established by the applicable guideline, if the court finds “that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, … It is in that connection, clearly covered by Section 5K1.1, that Jones proffered his assistance.

Gerard Cardenas v. Jon Massey James Rebo Robert Lipscher James Ciancia Deborah Poritz State of New Jersey

269 F.3d 251 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 16, 2001

See, e.g., Rudolph v. *268 Adamar of N.J., Inc., 153 F.Supp.2d 528, 542 (D.N.J.2001) (“Suits brought against the State as an employer are clearly within the scope of the explicit waiver of sovereign immunity contained in … Hurley, 174 F.3d at 128 (citing New Jersey cases); see also id. at 126 (failure to act may qualify as aiding and abetting when it rises to the level of “substantial assistance or encouragement.”) (quotation omitted).

United States v. Charles Senke

986 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 25, 2021

reversal. 53 Here, Senke’s claim does not fall into one of the established categories of structural error. … Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 173-74 (2002) (limiting automatic reversal rule established in Holloway v.

Antonello Boldrini v. Frederick Ammerman

629 F. App'x 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 2015

Given that Boldrini did not establish that his criminal prosecution ended in his favor, he cannot satisfy the favorable termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). See Wallace v. … Indeed, the resolution of his charges through ARD does not qualify as favorable termination for these purposes. See Gilles v.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Martinez

620 F.3d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 2010

This threat alone established the element of force or threat, whether the gun itself was ever introduced or not. See United States v. … The evidence readily established the first Ventura factor (distance or duration of the asportation).

Michelle McDonald-Witherspoon v. City of Philadelphia

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 21, 2021

Pennsylvania “officials and employees acting within the scope of their duties[] shall continue to enjoy sovereign immunity and official immunity and remain immune from suit except [when Pennsylvania] specifically waive[ … s] the immunity.” 1 Pa.

E. L. Wiegand Division v. National Labor Relations Board

650 F.2d 463 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 13, 1981

As this court has said in the context of unlawful discharge cases, [t]here is clearly no obligation on the Board to accept at face value the reason advanced by the employer. … If it is, then its choice of the remedy may not be enforced. ' As we have recently said, “[i]t is our duty to insure that the Board adheres to its established criteria unless it clearly decides to modify or alter those standards