Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,730 results
1.11s
226 F.3d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 7, 2000
Lopez, 514 U.S. at 580 (Kennedy, J., concurring). 75 Considered alone, these statements clearly raise the likelihood that FACE is unconstitutional. … The regulated enterprises were clearly within Morrison's definition of economic activity.
Cited 65 timesPublishedMortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
549 F.2d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 20, 1977
of an antitrust action; 2) some facets of the dispute were within the jurisdiction of the Commodity Exchange Commission; and 3) adjudication of that dispute by the agency promised to be of material aid in resolving the immunity … Judge Gibbons wrote that while the trial court does have significant latitude in determining matters of its own jurisdiction, we have never departed from the rule that even on such an issue the record must clearly establish
Disapproved on other grounds by Kulick, Robert J. v. Pocono Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc. Banks, Joseph, in His Capacity as President of Pocono Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc., 816 F.2d 895 (1987)Cited 1,560 timesPublishedAustin Williams v. Globus Medical Inc
869 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2017
Plaintiffs contend Globus instead used this period to establish a new in-house sales position to cover the geographic territory being handled by Vortex. 4 On February 26, 2014—in … Gov’t Sec., Inc., 24 F.3d 480, 490–91 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[E]ncompassed within that general obligation [to speak truthfully] is also an obligation or ‘duty’ to communicate any additional or qualifying information, then known
Cited 65 timesPublishedAss'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney Gen. N.J.
910 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 2018
Given the context out of which the Act was enacted, this clearly includes reducing the lethality of active shooter and mass shooting incidents. Thus, the State has asserted a qualifying interest. … In light of this evidence, the District Court did not clearly err when it concluded that the evidence "established that there is some delay associated with reloading, which may provide an opportunity for potential victims
Abrogated by New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)Cited 79 timesPublishedUnited States v. Scott Hayward
359 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 5, 2004
DNA testing established that there was only one chance in a billion that a semen sample taken from the girls’ clothing was not Hayward’s semen. … The contents of the tapes were clearly probative of the facts surrounding the crime charged.
Cited 59 timesPublished864 F.2d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 1988
Significantly, he presented no evidence, other than the surnames, to establish the ethnicity of the challenged jurors. … We are not persuaded that that factual finding was clearly erroneous.
Cited 52 timesPublishedBarber v. CSX Distribution Services
68 F.3d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 16, 1995
That interview report, dated April 5, 1990, stated that Barber was "qualified but [did] not possess the credentials of Kathy Ball" who was selected. … We agree with the district court's conclusion that Barber established a prima facie case.
Cited 3 timesUnknown174 F. App'x 710 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2006
In order to qualify as persecution for purposes of asylum, the alien must therefore show that: (1) the harm he or she faces is sufficiently severe to qualify as persecution; (2) it is “on account of” one of the statutorily-enumerated … The threshold for establishing eligibility for withholding of removal and eligibility under CAT is even higher than that for establishing entitlement to asylum. See Senathirajah v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished677 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-to-day operation of the railroad will be enabled to assume those responsibilities. 8 The district … 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 timesPublishedSkerski v. Time Warner Cable Co.
257 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 9, 2001
To make out a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that s/he (1) has a "disability," (2) is a "qualified individual," and (3) has suffered an "adverse employment decision" as a result of that disability … of which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits."
Cited 19 timesUnknownThomas N. Eckert v. Aliquippa & Southern Railroad Company
828 F.2d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 3, 1987
Proof of such a violation carries independent significance beyond establishing another basis, besides a violation of the FELA, for recovery against the carrier. 45 U.S.C. § 53 provides that no employee shall be held to have … Plaintiff, employed by the railroad for 30 years and fully familiar with railroad procedures, was qualified to testify as to whether injuries would have occurred had the cars properly coupled. Fed.R.Evid. 701, 702.
Cited 26 timesPublishedDavid Calhoun v. Lawrence Murray
507 F. App'x 251 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 20, 2012
Accordingly, Calhoun’s claims against Mann and Goldstein were dismissed on account of qualified immunity. … the federal courts” including “the defense of official immunity.”
Cited 12 timesUnpublishedJohn Torrey v. New Jersey Department of Law a
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 7, 2017
Finally, it ruled sua sponte that the State and state-employee defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. As none of the Court’s rulings were erroneous, we affirm. … He also challenges the District Court’s qualified immunity analysis for the same reason, disputing its reliance on the waivers in its reasoning. But Torrey’s public policy argument is unpersuasive.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJulie Welker v. Darrell L. Clarke
239 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2001
following removal if, at the time of signing [the] voters certificate, the elector files with the judge of elections a signed removal notice properly filled out. 5 Section 501(A) provides in relevant part,"[i]f an individual is qualified … If S 901(B)(2) were interpreted in the manner proposed by Welker, that paramount intent would clearly be defeated.
Cited 12 timesPublished72 F.3d 1096 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 15, 1995
That testimony was general and did not establish a clear policy, nor did it demonstrate that Rene had been directed to bring Sia to work. … Indeed, the plaintiff's ploy in dismissing Rene from the suit was clearly intended to focus the jury's attention on the deep pocket defendant, Esso.
Cited 30 timesPublished577 F.2d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 1978
The defendant, Rohm and Haas, presented well-qualified experts who pointed to several possible causes, including exposure to IBA, but who could not point to a specific causative agent. … This simply is not our role under the clearly erroneous standard.
Cited 1 timesPublishedLisa Christmann v. Cynthia Link
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2023
immunity. … It also argues that Link acted with deliberate indifference to the consequences when she established and maintained the 3:2 Policy.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedLuisa Tacuri Yuqui v. Attorney General United States of America
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 31, 2024
The BIA found that petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). … Here, the BIA denied petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal because they did not establish that their removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their qualifying relative.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSecretary United States Department of Labor v. East Penn Manufacturing Inc
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 19, 2024
But Anderson’s reach is limited because it addressed activ- ity that was not clearly work. … Though only a small number of employees testified, East Penn correctly concedes that “there is no bright- line test establishing the percentage of employees necessary to achieve a representative sample.”
Cited 0 timesPublished173 F.3d 225 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 19, 1999
Id. at 23. 19 The government called Williams as a witness following a grant of immunity to her. … process and to a fair trial were violated by the district court's failure to grant defendants' motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for a new trial. 43 We have reviewed these contentions and conclude that they are clearly
Cited 42 timesPublished
Ask Donna