Case law

Kenneth Lewis v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 15, 2022

Lewis is clearly financially eligible to proceed IFP based on the balance reflected in his prison account statement. See generally Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). … July 29, 2021), does not qualify as a strike because the case was dismissed only generally under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and was based in part on judicial immunity. See Byrd v.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. L.B. Foster Co.

123 F.3d 746 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 25, 1997

The district court's conclusion that "the evidence clearly and convincingly established that there was no sexual discrimination involved in Foster's [decision]" suggests that it was persuaded by Foster's evidence that Minor … Here, the EEOC clearly established a prima facie case of retaliatory discrimination. Wilson was engaged in protected activity when she informed Minor that she intended to file a sex discrimination charge. See Barber v.

United States v. Bonner

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 2004

Rather, the findings only when they are clearly testimony was consistent with, but fell erroneous, i.e. when they are “completely short of establishing, a search incident to a devoid of a … As the Court stated in English clearly testified that Bonner was Florida v.

Board Of Education Of The East Windsor Regional School District v. Nelson Diamond

808 F.2d 987 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 19, 1986

The governing law, however, clearly imposes a higher standard. 15 New Jersey qualifies for assistance from the federal government under the Education of the Handicapped Act, 84 Stat. 175 , as amended, 20 U.S.C. … Further, Congress by establishing a comprehensive scheme of procedural protections under EHA (see above) expected that in appropriate situations these procedures would be used before a parent or guardian filed a law suit.

Mail Order Association of America v. United States Postal Service, McGraw Inc. Newspaper Association of America Magazine Publishers of America, Inc. Tvsm Third Class Mail Association New York State Consumer Protection Board Coalition of Religious Press Associations United Parcel Service Dow Jones & Company, Inc. American Business Press Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers Nashua Corporation and District Photo, Inc. Advo, Inc. Time Warner, Inc. Major Mailers Association Shorter-Run Printers Committee Association of Alternate Postal Systems Parcel Shippers Association Reader's Digest Association, Inc. National Newspaper Association, Intervenors. Direct Marketing Association, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service Dow Jones & Company, Inc. American Business Press Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers Nashua Corporation and District Photo, Inc. Time Warner, Inc. Advo, Inc., Intervenors. Niagara Telephone Company v. United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service Dow Jones & Company, Inc. American Business Press Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers Nashua Corporation and District Photo, Inc. Time Warner, Inc. Advo, Inc., Intervenors. Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers v. United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service Dow Jones & Company, Inc. American Business Press Nashua Corporation and District Photo, Inc. Advo, Inc. Time Warner, Inc., Intervenors. Governors of the United States Postal Service v. Postal Rate Commission, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. United Parcel Service Brooklyn Union Gas Company American Business Press Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers American Bankers Association Nashua Corporation and District Photo, Inc. Time Warner, Inc. Advo, Inc., Intervenors. Third Class Mail Association v. United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service Dow Jones & Company, Inc. American Business Press Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers Nashua Corporation and District Photo, Inc. Time Warner, Inc. Advo, Inc., Intervenors. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service American Business Press Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers Nashua Corporation and District Photo, Inc. Time Warner, Inc. Advo, Inc., Intervenors. Advo, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service Dow Jones & Company, Inc. American Business Press Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers Nashua Corporation and District Photo, Inc. Time Warner, Inc., Intervenors. Time Warner, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service Dow Jones & Company, Inc. American Business Press Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers Nashua Corporation and District Photo, Inc. Advo, Inc., Intervenors

2 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 1993

All qualifying letters would be entitled to a two-cent discount. … "pre-sort discounts" for qualifying BRR mail.

Behrend v. Comcast Corp.

655 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2011

For a district court‘s finding of fact to be clearly erroneous, the standard is high. … McClave‘s methodology was clearly erroneous.

Slagle v. Clarion

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 2006

It applied the framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and held that Slagle had failed to establish a prima facie case. … NCAA, 346 F.3d 402, 431 n.24 (3d Cir. 2003) (“We recognize that [ ]Title VII is clearly remedial civil rights legislation . . . .”); Idahoan Fresh v.

United States v. Jones

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 27, 2004

Because the defendant in Abuhouran Background note refers to assistance in did not qualify for any of the exceptions criminal investigations, stating that “[a] and he conceded that his assistance … Following the work with Special Agent Cosgraf and Jones does not dispute that the SEC the FBI, it was immediately may qualify as an authority

In Re Schering-Plough Corp. Erisa Litigation

420 F.3d 231 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 19, 2005

However, the plaintiff may overcome that presumption by establishing that the fiduciary abused its decision by investing in employer securities.” Id. at 571. … The facts in Milofsky are clearly distinguishable from those in the matter sub judice.

Flax v. State of Delaware

329 F. App'x 360 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 2009

However, Flax was offered a temporary non- driving assignment so that he could accrue the length of service requirement to qualify for a disability pension. … First, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by offering sufficient evidence that he is a member of a protected class qualified for his position and that he suffered an adverse employment action

Singh v. Attorney General of the United States

492 F. App'x 236 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2012

Singh asserts that the indictment “ma[de] no reference to which of the sub-provisions of [ 8 U.S.C. § 1029 (a) ] served as the basis for [the prosecution],” Pet’r’s Br. 13, but he is incorrect; the indictment clearly charged … Crucially, an alien who requests this discretionary form of relief bears the burden of establishing his eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8 (d).

Dominic Oguejiofo v. Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ L

704 F. App'x 164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 31, 2017

Such subjective interpretations without more do not suffice to establish a prima facie case. … Wolf, Block, Schorr, and Solid-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 542-43 (3d Cir. 1992) (noting that numerical comparisons, without any analysis of either the qualified applicant pool or flow of qualified candidates over a period of time

Secretary United States Department of Labor v. Nursing Home Care Management Inc.

128 F.4th 146 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 2025

But an activity “need not be predominant in some way over all other activities” to qualify as principal. 29 C.F.R. § 790.8 (emphasis added). … The District Court did not make a conclusion of law, so we are left to ask whether the decision was “a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Grider v.

United States v. Antwaine Thomas

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 28, 2025

First, he challenges the District Court’s determination that his 2002 conviction qualifies as a career offender predicate. … To establish that the District Court’s alleged plain error affected his substantial rights, see id., Thomas must demonstrate that “against the backdrop of the ‘entire record,’ there is at least a ‘reasonable probability

Victor Frutis Salmoran v. Attorney General United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 26, 2018

For the reasons below, we hold that a conviction under section 2C:24-4(b)(5)(b) of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated for possession of child pornography qualifies as a crime of child abuse, but does not qualify as an … Yates, 847 F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 2017) (“The state crime at issue clearly does apply more broadly than the federally defined offense.

Ponnapula v. Ashcroft

373 F.3d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 2004

Cyr all establish this. … Preserving eligibility for discretionary withholding of deportation was probably not foremost in such aliens' minds, for they had the slimmest of chances to qualify for § 212(c) relief.

Gerald E. Kollman v. Hewitt Associates, LLC Rohm and Haas Company Rohm and Haas Benefits Administrative Committee. Rohm and Haas Company Rohm and Haas Benefits Administrative Committee, Gerald E. Kollman v. Hewitt Associates, LLC Rohm and Haas Company Rohm and Haas Benefits Administrative Committee. Gerald E. Kollman v. Hewitt Associates, LLC Rohm and Haas Company Rohm and Haas Benefits Administrative Committee

487 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 14, 2007

That figure, $522,043.30, had not been reduced by the amount of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") that was owing to Kollman's former wife. … To establish a violation under that section, Kollman must establish that he made a written request to the plan administrator (here, the BAC) and that the administrator failed to respond within thirty days.

COASTAL STATES GAS CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Appellant

644 F.2d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 14, 1981

There, as noted above, the district judge carefully surveyed the index and differentiated documents for which the agency clearly failed to establish the legal prerequisites for the claimed exemptions from documents which, … The holding in that case, which involved a contract renegotiation, qualified the district court’s injunctive power by requiring a contractor to pursue first his administrative remedy. See Renegotiation Board v.

United States v. RD 1, Box 1

952 F.2d 53 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 1991

Section 881(a)(7) states clearly that [a]ll real property ... which is used, or intended to be used ... [in any manner] to facilitate the commission of a [narcotics] violation” is subject to forfeiture. … Thus the connection between the property and the intended activity relating to illegal narcotics trafficking is firmly established.

Arden S. Heverly and Sophia S. Heverly v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

621 F.2d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 25, 1980

Were we clearly convinced that this prevailing interpretation is incorrect, we would not hesitate to adopt the construction advocated by the taxpayers. … Commissioner, 238 F.2d 943, 946-47 (7th Cir. 1956) (citing legislative history to establish that acquisitions of stock and acquisitions of assets were intended to be treated alike, and then relying on Air Reduction); Lutkins