Case law

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.

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.

Reich v. Gateway Press, Inc.

13 F.3d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 6, 1994

Second, the Gateway newspapers clearly satisfy the unified operation or common control requirement. … That finding is not clearly erroneous. b. Invention, imagination, or talent.

Joshua Payne v. John/Jane Doe

636 F. App'x 120 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 2016

immunity. … “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” O’Lone v.

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.

Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling, Inc. v. Board Of Chosen Freeholders Of Atlantic County

48 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 28, 1995

That fact did not, however, immunize from dormant Commerce Clause review its attempt to regulate the behavior of others in the market. … As a result, those regulations are not immune from review under the Commerce Clause.

Elsinore Shore Associates v. Local 54, Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union

820 F.2d 62 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 26, 1987

The court held that Elsinore qualified for the anti-strike injunction under Boys Markets, Inc. v. … In sum, we hold that the bankruptcy court’s factual finding concerning the cause of the strike was clearly erroneous.

Thomas J. Ryan v. Mansfield State College, Mansfield, Pa. Donald C. Darnton, and Janet L. Travis. Appeal of Donald C. Darnton and Janet L. Travis

677 F.2d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 3, 1982

The presidents of the State Colleges now have the authority to appoint faculty members but that authority is clearly subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. … In response to motions by all the defendants to dismiss, the district court by order of September 2, 1980, dismissed the claim against the College for monetary damages based on its eleventh amendment immunity. 3 .

AES Corp v. Dow Chem Co

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 14, 2003

Clearly, in such circumstances, a buyer who relies on seller-provided information without seeking to verify it has not acted reasonably. … We are unwilling, however, to hold that the extraction of a non-reliance clause, even from a sophisticated buyer, will always provide immunity from Rule 10b-5 fraud liability.

Jig the Third Corporation v. Puritan Marine Insurance Underwriters Corporation, Defendants-Third-Party Atlantic Marine, Inc., Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant. James I. George, Jr. v. Atlantic Marine, Inc., Jig the Third Corporation v. Y. E. Hall, Inc., Defendant-Third-Party Atlantic Marine, Inc., Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant

519 F.2d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 15, 1975

clearly reserved for the law of sales. … The suit, however, sought recovery for damage to the body of the airplane which was clearly distinct from the new engine.

United States v. Martin, James. Appeal of Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Inc., and Cbs Inc

746 F.2d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 23, 1984

Alvaro resigned from the force and agreed to cooperate with the FBI in exchange for immunity after his name surfaced in the ongoing federal investigation of corruption in the Philadelphia Police Department. … Martin specifically discussed a lucrative source of extortion money — "lead houses,” establishments where numbers bets are placed.

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).

prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 12,559 Edward J. Maguire, III v. Hughes Aircraft Corporation, Allison Gas Turbine Company Division of General Motors Corporation, Mpb Corporation, John Doe, Inc. (A Fictitious Name for a Corporation), Richard Roe Associates (A Fictitious Name for an Entity Other Than a Corporation), and Xyz, Inc. Or Abc Associates (Fictitious Names for the Manufacturer of the Engine And/or Power Plant Components of a Certain Hughes Aircraft Corporation Oh-6a Army Scout Single Engine Helicopter), Jointly, Severally or in the Alternative. Allison Gas Turbine Division of General Motors Corporation, Defendant/third Party v. Mpb Corporation, Third Party

912 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 5, 1990

Instead, Allison and MPB identified in the record undisputed evidence showing that the Army's approval of this type of design change was measured and clearly discretionary. … Since there was no "rubber stamp" involved, the district court correctly held that the Army approved reasonably precise specifications and that Allison and MPB therefore qualified for the government contractor defense under

Shakur Gannaway v. Nicholas Stroumbakis

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2021

See Will, 491 U.S. at 71 Municipalities may not be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory and are only answerable for their own unconstitutional policies or established customs. See Monell v. … A privately retained attorney clearly does not act under color of state law, and we previously have held that “no color of state law attache[s] to the functions of court-appointed counsel.” Black v.

American Consulting Corporation v. United States

454 F.2d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 29, 1971

In the present case, this court is also bound to affirm the District Judge’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. … Chief Judge SEITZ concurs in the result because the clearly erroneous standard of review is applicable.

William R. Beavers, Administrator of the Estate of Malcolm Robert Mason, Deceased v. West Penn Power Company and Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania. v. Robert S. Mason and Irene M. Mason. Appeal of the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania

436 F.2d 869 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 1971

9 In order to impute negligence under the controlling Pennsylvania law the plaintiff was required to establish a joint venture. Joint venture is an amorphous legal doctrine. … The agreement was clearly designed to prevent the unsightly and uneconomical duplication of utility poles.

John 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.

Kamara v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2005

The Sierra Leone government, though clearly not as brutal as the RUF, also had “serious problems” reflected in its human rights record. J.A. at 29. … Under the BIA’s application of the CAT regulations, to qualify for relief, Kamara was required to establish either: (1) that there was a greater than 50% probability that he would face torture at the hands of the RUF; or

Gelman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

583 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 5, 2009

Sections 1681n and 1681o establish civil liability for willful and negligent noncompliance with § 1681. … Moreover, in referring to “any offer of ... insurance,” Congress clearly did not intend to limit the scope of § 1681a(Z), to only those having “value.”

United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 91-00570-03). United States of America v. Aaron Jones, A/K/A "A", "J", (d.c. Criminal No. 91-00570-01). United States of America v. Bernard Fields, A/K/A "Quadir", "Q", (d.c. Criminal No. 91-00570-05)

1 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 1993

The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. … In light of the non-disclosure by the DEA agents in this case, we believe that the prosecutors have an obligation to establish procedures, such as requiring written responses, which will ensure that the responsible agents