Case law

United States v. Thomas Gilsenan and Ralph Cicalese

949 F.2d 90 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 24, 1991

The jurors were qualified in groups and as the members of each group were asked if there was any reason they could not be fair there was no re *94 sponse. 4 The jurors were instructed not to read about the case or listen … The purpose of a hearing is to determine what happened, that is to establish the historical record.

United States v. John Knight

705 F. App'x 58 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2017

That clearly establishes that the aggravator he admitted for both first-degree robbery convictions was a threat to use a deadly weapon. Knight relies on United States v. … Ann. § 2C:15-1(a)(1) and § 2C:15-1(a)(2) individually qualify as crimes of violence. 8

United States v. Alex Mussayek, A/K/A Tsion Mussayek, A/K/A Alexander Mussayel, A/K/A Alexander Mussyev Tsion "Alex" Mussayev

338 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 8, 2003

He settled in Brooklyn with his family, and established himself as owner of a small flower and candy business. … Similarly, Application Note 6 of § 2B3.1 is clearly distinguishable.

United States v. Wecht

537 F.3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 2008

The District Court clearly believed that the ability to establish such procedures for jury selection was within in its discretion. … Such cases clearly establish that the right to access can be effectively contested and satisfied post-trial.

Trancho v. Attorney General of United States

344 F. App'x 817 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

allow him to apply for an adjustment of status based on an approved labor certification. 1 Pursuant to INA § 212(h)(1)(B), “the Attorney General may, in his discretion,” grant an alien a waiver of inadmissibility, “if it is established … On appeal, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s determination that his qualifying relatives would not experience extreme hardship should he be removed, and held that Trancho had failed to demonstrate that remand to the IJ

Alexander v. Whitman

114 F.3d 1392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 23, 1997

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State..., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Casey, clearly acknowledged the advances in medical knowledge since Roe.

In Re Inc.

92 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 1996

Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the Committee has established that Mellon failed to confer reasonably equivalent value...." … We also acknowledge that whether a contemplated investment provided a significant "chance" to receive value more often than not will be bound up in the bankruptcy court's factual determinations and, thus, largely immune from

In Re: Application of Ariel Adan Elena Esther Avans

437 F.3d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 14, 2006

There is little question that, under this standard, the abuse, sexual and otherwise, that Avans contends Adan has inflicted on Arianna would, if true, .qualify as an intolerable situation and grave harm for purposes of Article … The District Court is correct that, even if Avans succeeds in establishing a grave risk of harm, it

Freehold Cogeneration Associates, L.P. v. Board of Regulatory Commissioners of New Jersey

44 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 9, 1995

The present attempt to either modify the PPA or revoke BRC approval is “utility-type” regulation — exactly the type of regulation from which Freehold is immune under section 210(e). … That section provides: Any person (including the Secretary) may bring an action against any electric utility, qualifying small power producer, or qualifying cogenerator to enforce any requirement established by a State regulatory

United States v. Black

338 F. App'x 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

Gin-ter, Walsh and Furth used Black to secure mortgage loans for buyers who might be able to qualify for federally *237 funded mortgages through HUD. Appel-lee’s Br. 6. … Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson v.

Cook v. Wikler

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

However, this prohibition is limited by the requirement that “ ‘§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).’ … The Thermtron exception to the jurisdictional bar established by § 1447(d) is premised on a “District Court exceed[ing] its authority in remanding on grounds not permitted by the controlling statute.”

JS Ex Rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School Dist.

650 F.3d 915 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 13, 2011

The policies clearly define when and where they apply. Further, the content of the regulations is not impermissibly vague. … Instead, it was implemented despite the fact that these policies quite clearly did not extend to the conduct at issue.

United States v. Wecht

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 2008

Wecht’s anonymous jury, we cannot rely on them because the District Court was required to place “findings on the record which clearly established that closure was necessary to protect an overriding interest.” … As has been noted above, the question in this case is not whether the media has a right to access the voir dire proceedings; that right has been clearly established in the case law.

Trustees of the Amalgamated Insurance Fund v. Sheldon Hall Clothing, Inc. And Sheldon Mehrman, T/a Meyer D. Mehrman & Son and Sheldon Mehrman

862 F.2d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 5, 1989

This would undermine Congress’ clearly expressed preference for self-regulation of the MPPAA through arbitration. Republic Industries v. Central Pa. Teamsters, 693 F.2d 290 , 294-95 (3d Cir.1982). … Sheldon Mehrman’s own testimony at the arbitration hearing established that he was the owner of MMS, a sole proprietorship.

United States v. Ammar

714 F.2d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

Refused to grant use immunity to a co-defendant whose testimony would contradict that of the witness concerning the single directly incriminatory event? … We reject Stillman’s suggestion that it would have been appropriate to grant Ghassan judicial use immunity under Government of the Virgin Islands v. Smith, 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir.1980).

Roman v. DiGuglielmo

675 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 4, 2012

In order to satisfy the futility exception to the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must show that the state remedy is so “clearly foreclosed” by state law that we can “conclude with certainty” that state courts afford … Id. at 37 (adopting the test for due process claims established in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)).

Carlos Bastardo-Vale v. Attorney General United States

934 F.3d 255 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

Indeed, the entire regimen established under the Immigration and Nationality Act and related treaties impose burdens on the Executive’s exercise of authority. … The court’s declaration to the contrary is nothing more than ipse dixit, and my colleagues’ citation to it is also an ipse dixit; it could not more clearly conflict with the statutory text.

United Retail & Wholesale Employees Teamsters Union Local No. 115 Pension Plan v. Yahn & Mc Donnell, Inc.

787 F.2d 128 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 23, 1986

He proceeded to explain why the procedures established for determining withdrawal liability are not unreasonable. … The report must be prepared and signed by a qualified actuary. See also 26 U.S.C. Sec. 412 (c) (requiring similar determinations for income tax purposes).

Pocono Mountain Charter School v. Pocono Mountain School District

442 F. App'x 681 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 25, 2011

If the School qualifies as a § 1983 “person,” then is it, like a municipality, barred from bringing suit against its creator or charter- 6 See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Reg’l Transp. … If the statements were made in the School’s official capacity, the school officials who made them are protected by high official immunity under Pennsylvania state law. See 42 Pa. C.S. § 8546; Zugarek v. S. Tioga Sch.

United States v. Larry Boone, United States of America v. Thomas Weston, AKA Rasul Thomas Weston, United States of America v. Thomas Weston, AKA Rasul

279 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 2002

Weston and Farris were clearly accomplices in the offense of conviction and in their joint purchases of cocaine powder from Poppy. … Therefore, argues Weston, *180 the district court’s estimate of the total volume of drugs was clearly erroneous. We disagree.