Case law

United States ex rel. Vounas v. Hughes

116 F.2d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 2, 1940

One of the things he clearly must not do is to abandon his profession and undertake life as a landlubber without benefit of immigrant inspection. lie might then have been punished for so doing by deportation. … They may have been cognizant of a certain--well-established tenet of statutory construction.

McCaughn v. Electric Storage Battery Co.

63 F.2d 715 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 1933

Such delegation of power was clearly within the power of Congress to make, and such centering of responsibility upon one officer was a wise provision to prevent criticism. … Did the taxpayer, by the weight of the evidence, establish these facts?

B.H. Ex Rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District

725 F.3d 293 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 2013

Justice Breyer would have avoided the “difficult First Amendment issue” and concluded that “qualified immunity bars [Morse’s] claim for monetary damages.” … Feb. 6, 2012) (“When one reads the entire phrase, it is clearly a message designed to promote breast cancer awareness.”).

Reading Co. v. Larkin

114 F.2d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 1940

The action of the parties, upon which the defendant here relies to establish a termination of the movement forward of the “spilled coal”, is the change in ownership brought about by the defendant’s purchase of the coal. … All of this clearly appears from the testimony of the yard master, a witness for the defendant.

Jack Colgan v. Fisher Scientific Company

935 F.2d 1407 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 1991

On November 25, 1985, Fisher offered its employees an early retirement program for which Colgan qualified, but on January 15, 1986, he declined to participate in the program. … The statement clearly signaled that Colgan had an opportunity to redeem himself by an improved performance over the next 60 to 90 days.

Jack E. COUP, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services

834 F.2d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 1987

Moreover, “for the government, in relying entirely on a legal argument, to establish that its position was substantially justified, it must demonstrate that that argument presented an unsettled or close question of law.” … Johnson , Judge Rosenn would have imposed an even higher burden on the government: a showing that its position was “clearly reasonable, well founded in law and fact, solid tbough not necessarily correct.” 799 F.2d at 41 .

Quilloin v. Tenet HealthSystem Philadelphia, Inc.

673 F.3d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 14, 2012

Thus, in order to qualify as a question of arbitrability that the court may consider, the challenge must “relat[e] to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate.” Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. … The Supreme Court has clearly established that ambiguities in arbitration agreements must be interpreted by the arbitrator. PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v.

Travillion v. Coffee

248 F. App'x 335 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2007

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” … Aramark is clearly not liable for the actions of prison staff who are not Aramark employees.

Morgan v. Perry

142 F.3d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 27, 1998

not waive sovereign immunity for an award of backpay." … The government has the burden of establishing that there is substantial justification for its position. Id. at 128.

Arab African International Bank v. Jonathan I. Epstein Richard S. Goldman Goldman & Epstein Kendis & Baker, P.C. Sherman L. Kendis. Arab African International Bank v. Jonathan I. Epstein Richard S. Goldman Goldman & Epstein Kendis & Baker, P.C. Sherman L. Kendis. Jonathan I. Epstein, Richard S. Goldman and Goldman & Epstein

10 F.3d 168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 30, 1993

by the State in which it is to be operated; (4) no foreign bank may directly or indirectly establish and operate a State agency or commercial lending company subsidiary outside of its home State, unless its establishment … Clearly, the IBA enables a state to allow or disallow a foreign bank's establishment of branches, agencies or subsidiaries within its borders. That was not what happened here, however.

William and Marie Purificato v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service. John and Catherine Purificato v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service. William and Marie Purificato John and Catherine Purificato

9 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 10, 1993

In order to qualify for relief under this provision, the claimant bears the burden of proving all four of the elements set out in subsections (A) to (D). See, e.g., Stevens, 872 F.2d at 1504 ; Purcell v. … As we have already observed, Marie Purificato and her husband failed to establish that they did not acquire substantial undisclosed assets.

Dole v. East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc.

894 F.2d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 1990

was not clearly foreshadowed. … As a precedent, its rationale was not clearly established and East Penn knew that the decision could be overturned on review by the Fifth Circuit, as it eventually was.

William Bullock v. Bimbo Bakeries USA

414 F. App'x 470 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 22, 2011

. § 6332, Defendants are immune from liability for honoring an IRS tax levy. … Judgment will be granted only where the moving party clearly establishes that there are no material issues of fact, and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. DiCarlo v. St.

Knight v. Poritz

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 3, 2005

We exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint based on absolute and qualified immunity grounds. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coviello, 233 F.3d 710, 713 (3d Cir. 2000). … Regardless, Murray is entitled to absolute immunity.

Malachy McAllister Mark J. McAllister Sarah B. McAllister Paul Gary McAllister Nicola McAllister Sean R. McAllister v. Attorney General of the United States, Nicola McAllister Sean R. McAllister v. Attorney General of the United States

444 F.3d 178 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2006

The statute does not qualify the term "organization." Terms and provisions may not be added to a statute where Congress has omitted them. See Sale v. … To establish a prima facie case for deferral, an alien must establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in the country of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c)(2).

Southeastern Sprinkler Co. v. Meyertech Corp.

831 F.2d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 14, 1987

In a recent case involving a district court’s partial remand to a bankruptcy judge, we qualified our assumption of the pragmatic approach and referred to the traditional attitude of general reluctance to adopt an expansive … Also, before the total cost method can be applied the plaintiff must establish a reasonable basis for allocating its increased costs to the defendant.

Wendy Osorio Martinez v. Attorney General United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 18, 2018

This is clearly the correct reading, and not merely because the Landon Court relied on United States ex rel. Knauff v. … As we observed, “the power to expel or exclude aliens [i]s a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control,” id. at 439 (quoting Fiallo v.

Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.

137 F.2d 764 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1943

That Hatch, Hartford’s employee, and not Clarke, the labor leader, wrote the article and that the purpose of the methods employed in having it published was as above indicated may now be taken as indisputably established. … Barnett addressed several more letters to Judge Buffington relative to the matter of the Clarke article, stating in his letter of December 16, 1933, that the correspondence submitted “ * * * clearly shows that the publication

Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.

161 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 16, 1998

The RICO Amendment qualifies this language in § 1964(c) by excluding RICO claims predicated on “any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities.” … about the judicial interpretation of a provision affecting both procedure and substantive rights, as it *168 was unclear after Landgraf whether the presumption against applying substantive statutes retrospectively or the qualified

United States v. Kelly

539 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 2008

Lima, 774 F.2d 1245 (3d Cir.1985), such inaction simply does not qualify as reasonable diligence. … It is undisputed that Jones was not questioned, and thus Carmichael is clearly distinguishable. United States v. Morales, No. 90-441-2, 1991 WL 276022 (E.D.Pa.