Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,730 results
1.95s
In re the Morristown & Erie Railroad
677 F.2d 360 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 10, 1982
In addition, the Trustee will be freed of the burden of running the railroad, while individuals better qualified in the day-today operation of the railroad will be enabled to assume those responsibilities. … Section 17(b)(3) clearly is a uniform bankruptcy law — assuming that it is, in fact, a bankruptcy law 8 — because it applies to all railroads in the country undergoing reorganization, save the Milwaukee.
Cited 1 timesPublishedCornel Cameron v. Attorney General United States
641 F. App'x 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 17, 2016
Cameron’s conviction clearly meets these requirements, as § 843 is part of the CSA, and prescribes a maximum penalty of four years.2 21 U.S.C. § 843(d); see also Khan v. … Att’y Gen., 625 F.3d 782, 787 (3d Cir. 2010) (“To establish a violation of due process, the petitioner[] must show that substantial prejudice resulted from the alleged procedural errors.”).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished584 F.3d 132 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 14, 2009
precise, that the AEPA requires an intent to cause both physical disruption to the animal enterprise and damage or loss of property of the animal enterprise (amounting to at least $10,000), a finding of specific intent is clearly … The parties do not dispute that the Internet qualifies as a facility in interstate commerce and that Huntingdon meets the definition of an animal enterprise.
Cited 35 timesPublishedElmer J. Jonnet v. Dollar Savings Bank of the City of New York
530 F.2d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 1976
established claim. … Since foreign attachments necessary to secure jurisdiction qualify as an “extraordinary situation,” 407 U.S. at 91, n.23 , 92 S.Ct. 983 , the instant procedures could be evaluated in light of the three criteria established
Cited 88 timesPublishedMiller Plastic Products Inc v. NLRB
141 F.4th 492 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 23, 2025
In MCPc, other employees’ subsequent agreement was important to establish the group nature of the grievance. … Common experience establishes that whether or not a question is actually an assertion depends on context.
Cited 3 timesPublishedUnited States v. Rahman Fulton
837 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 2016
Agent Scartozzi testified that records of Barnes’ phone calls established that he was on the phone when the robbery occurred. … An opinion only qualifies as helpful “if it aids or clarifies an issue that the jury would not otherwise be as competent to understand.” 91 Thus, where a witness is not in a better position than the jurors to form an opinion
Cited 72 timesPublished178 F. App'x 169 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 2006
The District Court held in the alternative that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from liability because it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that probable cause existed to arrest Young based … The warrant is based on a sworn criminal complaint filed in the New York court, it is duly signed by a judge, and its contents, although minimal, are sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest for aggravated harassment
Cited 8 timesUnpublishedDale S. Bogus v. American Speech & Hearing Association
582 F.2d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 27, 1978
Such out-of-pocket expenditures paid directly to the defendant clearly constitute an injury in fact. … These three elements of per se illegal tie-ins are well established in subsequent Supreme Court decisions, as well as within this circuit. See Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v.
Cited 53 timesPublishedIn the Matter of Harold Laskin, Bankrupt. Harold Laskin, Industrial Rayon Corporation
316 F.2d 70 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 6, 1963
On December 1, I960 the bankrupt filed Exception to the Specification of Objections on the ground that Industrial was not a creditor of the estate and thus was not qualified to be heard in opposition to the bankrupt’s discharge … It excludes parol evidence for any purpose except reformation. * * * “The rule here stated is that the representative is liable personally unless the instrument itself clearly shows that he has signed only on behalf of another
Cited 7 timesPublished68 F. App'x 290 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 16, 2003
Here, the BIA stated clearly that it was conducting a de novo review of the record. Therefore, we review the BIA’s decision. … Evidence demonstrating multiple physical attacks, the destruction of a home, and threatening phone calls and surveillance qualifies as “persecution” under applicable precedent.
Cited 0 timesPublished228 F. App'x 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 11, 2007
Construing Booth’s legal mail claim as a First Amendment privacy right claim, we conclude that it fails on qualified immunity grounds for the same reasons set forth in Jones. Id. at 364. … An inmate’s right to privacy in legal mail was not clearly established when the defendants opened Booth’s mail outside of his presence in 2002-2003. 6 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir.
Cited 10 timesUnpublishedPublic Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
123 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 1997
PIRG and FOE obtained a declaratory judgment from a New Jersey District Court establishing that they had standing to prosecute their action against MEI. See PIRG v. … This, of course, is not to say that MEI is immune from liability for future violations of the monitoring and reporting requirements contained in its NPDES permit.
Cited 51 timesPublished42 F.3d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 29, 1994
As we have attempted to show, a vessel can so qualify if it is stateless under international law. … Without a clearly articulated objection, a trial judge is not apprised sufficiently of the contested issue and the need to cure a potential error to avoid a new trial. Id. at 1129 (citing United States v.
Cited 17 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 28, 2006
Paragraph 6 of the indictment indicated that Form 1032 “was used to determine whether the claimant qualified for continued benefits and to determine whether an adjustment for continued benefits was warranted.” … The statute was enacted prior to Apprendi, and in that context, the relevant text clearly related only to the Court’s sentencing decision.
Cited 0 timesPublished422 F.2d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 17, 1970
Whether to award relief to qualified applicants has been confided by Congress to the discretion of the Attorney General. 7 Thus the case presents the very narrow issue: was discretion to suspend petitioner's deportation exercised … 8 The answer is clearly in the negative. 15 None of the reasons for the relief advanced by petitioner achieved a greater level than the thrust of his plea that his economic well being would be adversely affected by his deportation
Cited 0 timesPublished527 F. App'x 212 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 5, 2013
To prove its claim for response costs under CERCLA, DPNR must establish the following four elements: (1) the alumina refinery at issue is a facility within the meaning of CERCLA; (2) there has been a release or threatened … Asarco, 232 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2000), as support for its conclusion, but that case is clearly distinguishable.
Cited 4 timesUnpublishedGoran Mudric v. Attorney General of the United States
469 F.3d 94 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 24, 2006
Furthermore, “to have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … The petitioner challenged the IJ’s determination that he did not qualify for an exception to the one-year filing deadline.
Cited 164 timesPublished743 F.2d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 1984
The order established a visitation schedule and directed that Rebecca make monthly support payments of $270.00. … Our disposition of these appeals makes it unnecessary to address the exercise of pendent jurisdiction 9 Because the children began to reside with Douglas on December 28, 1981, New Jersey clearly had become the home state
Cited 0 timesPublishedGarcia v. Attorney General of United States
665 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 28, 2011
sisters conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming that if they are returned to 1 To the extent the Immigration Judge‘s factual findings are not so clearly … To qualify for withholding of removal under the INA, an alien must show either (1) that she has suffered past persecution in the country of removal ―on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
Cited 98 timesPublishedLeroy Buhl v. Mr. Cooksey, Warden Attorney General of the State of New Jersey
233 F.3d 783 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 1, 2000
We realize, of course, that the record establishes that Buhl had represented himself before. In addition, Buhl was clearly “street-smart,” and had some technical legal knowledge. … At a subsequent pre-trial hearing, defendant renewed his request to “assist” counsel at his trial rather than conduct his own defense because he realized he was not qualified to proceed pro se.
Cited 108 timesPublished
Ask Donna