Case law

Wilson v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority

470 F. App'x 72 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 2012

VIDOL found that Wilson qualified for unemployment benefits beginning August 21, 2005. … The District Court denied that motion as it had recently determined that sovereign immunity did not apply to WAPA.

Kentucky West Virginia Gas Co v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

837 F.2d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 19, 1988

The statute very clearly requires that the gas costs which may be passed through to consumers must meet the standards set out in § 1318. … A party is entitled to appear in person or by or with counsel or other duly qualified representative in an agency proceeding.... .

Roebuck, Dr. James R. v. Drexel University

852 F.2d 715 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 26, 1988

It means by that term not “satisfactory” in relation to some established and fixed standard such as might prevail in a department of long-established reputation for scholarship, but satisfactory in the light of a program … Although not addressing this precise issue, the Supreme Court has stated quite clearly that where there are “separate and distinct statutory provision[s],” one of which authorizes legal relief and one of which authorizes

United States v. Smith

789 F.2d 196 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 1986

Camiel is clearly distinguishable from the case before us as there is no evidence of antagonistic groups. We find that the evidence presented does support the jury’s finding of a single conspiracy. … Clearly, the jury did not believe Stoneman’s explanations of his actions. We find that the jury could properly infer guilt from the evidence presented. See United States v.

Brinson v. Vaughn

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2005

We must thus decide whether the state courts’ “adjudication of the claim . . . resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the … The stark pattern here qualifies.

In re Grand Jury Proceedings

654 F.2d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1981

Although mindful of the independent status, qualified by the Supremacy Clause, of the state courts, we fail to see how the order at issue here unduly intrudes into the *278 sensitive area of federal-state relations. … The state court judge is not immunized from an order entered pursuant to Section 1651 simply by his status as a state officer. Abundant precedent exists for federal court directives to state officials. In Price v.

Axel Schulz v. United States Boxing Association

105 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 24, 1997

In considering the first prong, we observe that Schulz's status in the boxing community, as well as his public reputation, were clearly affected by the IBF's decision not to disqualify Botha. … that the operation of bioanalytical laboratories by qualified non-doctors, as well as by physicians, is in the public interest."); see also Desai v.

Edward J. Russell v. City of Wildwood

428 F.2d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 1970

Such can be provided, at least in part, by permitting the use of accepted tables or the testimony of a qualified expert, who can compose the proper computations. … There is no logical reason why it should not be established by proof like other relevant facts.

Ali v. Gibson

631 F.2d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 2, 1980

We will therefore reverse the district court’s factual finding on the transfer issue because it is clearly erroneous. B. … It qualifies placements only to the extent that they are “available, suitable, and appropriate.”

In Re Magic Restaurants, Inc.

205 F.3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 1, 2000

The court held that PACA "is silent on the issue of whether restaurants qualify as `dealers,' " and therefore, "Congress has not spoken directly to the issue of PACA's applicability to restaurants." (A.7). … In Kelley, the livestock dealer was clearly engaged in the business of selling livestock. Kelley was a proprietor of a stockyard that, because it was private, was not itself subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Bixler v. Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund

12 F.3d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 28, 1993

Her circumstance was clearly broader than her inquiry. … Sec. 1109 , establishes "Liability for Breach of Fiduciary Duty."

Patten Securities Corp., Inc. v. Diamond Greyhound & Genetics, Inc.

819 F.2d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 21, 1987

While it is not clear what course the case will take upon the completion of the pending arbitration, the order clearly contemplates the possibility of further proceedings. … The National Arbitration committee is empowered to establish rules, regulations, and procedures for arbitration matters. Id.

Sean Park v. Temple University

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2018

Buchan, 710 F.3d 698, constitutional right [that] was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Mammaro v. N.J. … Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has deemed that right to have been clearly established well before then. Doe, 882 F.3d at 604; Heyne, 655 F.3d at 568. Thus, Dean Ismail is not eligible for qualified immunity at this stage.

Northeastern Pennsylvania v. County of Lackawanna Transit

938 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 2019

But Freethought would still like to run its thrice-rejected “Atheists” ad, which “more clearly explain[s] who its members are.” Freethought Br. 19. … Even the majority appears to recognize that there is a well-established and fundamental distinction between subject- matter and viewpoint restrictions.

Lexington Insurance v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital

423 F.3d 318 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 9, 2005

As the District Court recognized, Condition F clearly speaks in terms of occurrence-based, not claims-made, coverage. … The plain language of the two endorsements at issue here clearly favors West Penn.

Ogden Fire Co. No. 1 v. Upper Chichester Township

504 F.3d 370 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 2007

The Township does not directly claim that the district court’s finding of a joint application was clearly erroneous. … established that Ogden’s property was not the only site that would remedy Sprint’s problem.

D & D Associates, Inc. v. Board of Education of North Plainfield

552 F. App'x 110 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 8, 2014

To establish stigma, the relevant statements by the defendant must be both made publicly and false. Hill, 455 F.3d at 236 . … D & D has not argued, nor even clearly suggested, that the ruling was in error for concluding that the contractual rights were wholly assigned.

Al-Sharif v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

734 F.3d 207 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 19, 2013

As a result, we held that “to qualify as an aggravated felony under the INA [the alien’s offense] must meet the requirements of Section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), loss to the victim of more than $10,000, in addition to Section 1101 … Wire fraud is clearly an offense “involv[ing] fraud or deceit,” see Doe v.

Johnson v. Pinchak

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 22, 2004

Reed, supra, the Supreme Court established a “plain statement” rule that there would be no procedural default, for purposes of federal habeas review, unless “the last state court rendering judgment in the case ‘clearly and … To qualify for this exception, a petitioner “must show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have found him eligible for the death penalty in light of the new evidence. Calderon v.

People v. John

654 F.3d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2011

The same section elsewhere states: The relations between the courts established by the Constitution or laws of the United States and the courts established by [Virgin Islands] *1332 law with respect to appeals, certiorari … A ruling on a suppression motion is interlocutory in nature, and therefore does not obviously qualify as a “final decision.” See Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121 , 131, 82 S. Ct. 654 , 7 L. Ed. 2d 614 (1962).