Case law

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.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,987, 21 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1283 Silvia L. Adalman George S. Allen Bernard Ansher Irene B. Ansher Laurence Banyas J. Frank Belford, Jr. Grace C. Belford Juan M. Cameron Nora L. Cameron Dale Ann Cooke Dennis D. Donahue Gretchen J. Donahue Stanley H. Engle Marilyn J. Engle Harry Feinberg Douglas S. Goodwin John F. Griffin Ridgway M. Hall, Jr. Anne Harken Hall Donald v. Kane Lois Jean Kane Samuel J. Floyd, Jr. Malcolm R. Lovell, Jr. Celia C. Lovell Warren L. Miller O/g Recovery Partners, a Maryland Partnership Richard A. Slifer Kristine R. Slifer Gifford Weary and Robert K. Weary, Jr., and Gerald J. Bowes and Luther C. Dilatush v. Baker, Watts & Co., a Maryland Partnership, Edgar M. Boyd N. Clark Moran Paul Berghaus B-W Resources, Inc., a Maryland Corporation and Scott W. Williams v. Julia M. Walsh & Sons, Inc. Henry T. Donaldson Thomas D. Walsh Douglas R. Bevers and Elkins & Co., a Division of Prudential Bache Securities, Inc., Third-Party Silvia L. Adalman George S. Allen Bernard Ansher Irene B. Ansher Laurence Banyas J. Frank Belford, Jr. Grace C. Belford Juan M. Cameron Nora L. Cameron Dale Ann Cooke Dennis D. Donahue Gretchen J. Donahue Stanley H. Engle Marilyn J. Engle Harry Feinberg Douglas S. Goodwin John F. Griffin Ridgway M. Hall, Jr. Anne Harken Hall Donald v. Kane Lois Jean Kane Samuel J. Floyd, Jr. Malcolm R. Lovell, Jr. Celia C. Lovell Warren L. Miller O/g Recovery Partners, a Maryland Partnership Richard A. Slifer Kristine R. Slifer Gifford Weary and Robert K. Weary, Jr., and Gerald J. Bowes and Luther C. Dilatush v. Baker, Watts & Co., a Maryland Partnership, Edgar M. Boyd N. Clark Moran Paul Berghaus B-W Resources, Inc., a Maryland Corporation and Scott W. Williams v. Julia M. Walsh & Sons, Inc. Henry T. Donaldson Thomas D. Walsh Douglas R. Bevers and Elkins & Co., a Division of Prudential Bache Securities, Inc., Third-Party

807 F.2d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 31, 1986

Here, however, plaintiffs seek to establish that Baker, Watts, the dealer-manager of the Partnership, was a "seller" of the securities. … However, the record reveals clearly what the defendants sought to elicit from Casgar.

Dashaun White v. State of New Jersey

514 F. App'x 258 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 1, 2013

Nor is there any 2 Like the district court, we find no occasion to assess whether Schenck and Iantorno should prevail based on the alternative grounds of qualified immunity. … Nothing in the record establishes that, prior to October 29, 2007, any inmate inside the FMU was attacked for any reason – including gang-related issues or due to an emergency exit door being opened.

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.

Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc. v. New Kensington Arnold School District

832 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

Thus, the federal courts would need to adjudicate the merits of this alleged Establishment Clause violation. … Schaub clearly has standing to seek injunc-tive and declaratory relief. I question the need to conduct a separate standing analysis for nominal damages.

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

Mock v. Northhampton County (In Re Mock)

252 F. App'x 522 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 1, 2007

Mock appealed, arguing that she financially qualifies for IFP status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1291, see Abdul-Akbar v. … Under these facts, Mock is clearly financially qualified for IFP status. 4 418 F.3d 372, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that a mandamus petitioner must establish, inter alia

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.

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

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.

Children's Seashore House v. Waldman

197 F.3d 654 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 30, 1999

Rather, r-4 is a definitional provision that describes certain procedures that a state must satisfy, such as submitting a qualifying plan to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by a certain date to establish an adequate … Likewise, the courts consider discriminatory treatment based upon a citizen's state of residence a potential violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. See Lunding v.

DeMasi v. Weiss

669 F.2d 114 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 8, 1982

It is equally well established that such orders compelling or denying discovery are generally interlocutory. … If liability is established, the district court, having become aware of our determination that the discovery issue may qualify as one of the “extraordinary situations” that justify mandamus, and our further determination

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.

Citizens for Health v. Secretary HHS

428 F.3d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 31, 2005

In this case, by contrast, the action that Citizens challenge–the promulgation of the Amended Rule by the Secretary–is clearly government conduct. … The right to discriminate, including the right to discriminate on racial grounds, was now embodied in the State’s basic charter, immune from legislative, executive, or judicial regulation at any

Pichardo v. Virgin Islands Commissioner of Labor

613 F.3d 87 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 8, 2010

But that disposition may not be yielded to, where the lower court has clearly erred.”) (citation omitted). … drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of 15  the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity

American Locomotive Co. v. White

205 F. 260 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 6, 1913

Bridge Works, supra, and laying down as a general rule that “the test of negligence in method, in machinery, and appliances is the ordinary usage of the business,” qualifies the rule as follows: “It is. however, competent … and we are satisfied from a reading of the whole charge that the meaning intended to be conveyed, and the meaning that the ordinary listener would carry away, was substantially the same as obvious, or plain, or clearly visible

Joseph v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.

651 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 5, 2011

P. 26] when a party shows that disclosure will result in a clearly defined, specific and serious injury but that broad allegations of harm are not sufficient to establish good cause”); MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. … Further, while the “additional justification” of the death of counsel’s father “would in some circumstances qualify as ‘good cause shown,’” id., counsel in question had not been working on the petition and “prevented by the

Brian Betz v. Abbe Satteson

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 16, 2017

Discussion On appeal, Appellants contend that the District Court (1) misapplied the standard of review on summary judgment, (2) erred as a matter of law by holding that Satteson was entitled to qualified immunity … claims, we need not reach the immunity issues.

United States v. William S. Polan, George H. Wehner, Sr., William S. Polan

970 F.2d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 1992

It has long been established, however, that an indictment need not negative a statutory exception. In McKelvey v. … Prior decisions of this court have held that the Constitution provides qualified protection for medical records sought by search warrant or subpoena.

Benezet Consulting LLC v. Secretary Commonwealth of PA

26 F.4th 580 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 24, 2022

“A district court abuses its discretion if its decision rests on an incorrect legal standard, a clearly erroneous factual finding, or a misapplication of the law to the facts.” TD Bank N.A. v. … A well-established exception to the mootness doctrine holds that we have jurisdiction to decide technically moot cases which are “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Rendell v.