Case law

Amerada Hess Corp. v. Commissioner

517 F.2d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 13, 1975

This finding, based upon the resolution of conflicting evidence, may not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.” 28 *83 B. … This restriction does not, therefore, qualify as an “exceptional” attribute. . Both findings are unimpeachable under the “clearly erroneous” rule. See Commissioner v.

Rasheed Nifas v. Belles

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 4, 2022

However, even in that case, the District Court dismissed the complaint upon concluding that the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because the right not to have legal mail copied or stored outside an inmate … ’s presence was not clearly established.

STELWAGON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee, v. TARMAC ROOFING SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant

63 F.3d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 27, 1995

The district court qualified Dr. … Although the customer statements at issue in this case clearly were admissible as evidence of why the customers were not purchasing Tarmac MAPs from Stelwagon, i.e., because they thought they could get a better deal elsewhere

Point Landing, Inc. And Point Landing Fuel Corp. v. Omni Capital International, Ltd., Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs- Appellants-Appellees v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., Defendant-Third Party and James Gourlay, Third Party William S. Smith, Jr., and Ruby M. Smith v. Omni Capital International, Ltd., Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd. And James Gourlay, Third Party Frank J. George and Brenda A. George v. Omni Capital International, Ltd., Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd. And James Gourlay, Third Party Dennis M. Rosenberg and Joan Rosenberg v. Omni Capital International, Ltd., Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd. And James Gourlay, Third Party

795 F.2d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 8, 1986

When there is a hiatus in the Federal Rules the district court may establish its own ad hoc rule, provided that it is fair and reasonable and not inconsistent with any of the express rules. … Service was effected under Rule 4(d)(3), but the court clearly expanded the scope of its minimal contact inquiry to the national forum.

Buchholz v. Midwestern Intermediate Unit IV

128 F. App'x 890 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 19, 2005

The other is qualified immunity. The first, the statute of limitations, is a law that provides that a claim is barred if a plaintiff does not bring it within a prescribed period. … That Defendants did not engage in any actionable wrong in the two years preceding September 26, 2001, is clearly evidenced in the record.

American Steel & Wire Co. v. Tynan

183 F. 949 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 28, 1911

child and shall have the same and equal right to its custody and services as is now by law possessed by her husband, who is the father of said minor child; provided,-however, that the mother of said minor child is otherwise qualified … Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, which requires that the subject of every bill must be clearly expressed in tlie title, it is always permissible to examine the title for aid in construing the body of a statute.

Ali v. Suchocki

254 F. App'x 143 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 9, 2007

The defendants established by the affidavit of Kristen Reisinger that the only fully exhausted grievances are nos. 121278 and 115857.2 Turning to the constitutional merit of these grievances, Ali claimed in one … immunity shield the defendants from this action.

Association New Jersey Rifle v. Attorney General New Jersey

974 F.3d 237 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 1, 2020

But whether we agree with the majority’s opinion or not, we cannot say that it is clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. … Heller itself repeatedly invokes the First Amendment in establishing principles governing the Second Amendment.” Id.

Bronze Shields, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Civil Service

667 F.2d 1074 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 1, 1981

established law. … First, Evans did not reverse clearly established law. The continuing viola *1085 tions theory was in its embryonic stages at the time the plaintiffs supposedly, relied on it in 1975.

Horn v. Thoratec Corp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 20, 2004

previously established FDA IV. … Tr. at 7:20- earlier, it is firmly established that a 8:12 & 10:12-14.

Gfl Advantage Fund, Ltd., a British Virgin Islands Corporation v. Douglas R. Colkitt Douglas Colkitt

272 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 16, 2001

Colk-itt insists that he only must establish that GFL attempted to depress prices by selling shares short. … Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, Colkitt clearly created genuine issues as to whether GFL’s short sales affected the prices of National Medical and EquiMed. 7 .

United States v. James Chandler

104 F.4th 445 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 11, 2024

It clearly falls within the scope of the relevant application note, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(E), which we have concluded can properly be considered. … Thus, the court did not clearly err in finding motive based on the status of the USPS worker whom Chandler robbed and kidnapped. III.

National Labor Relations Board v. Wilson Line, Inc.

122 F.2d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 1941

Since the discharge of these men and the failure to reinstate them were discriminatory the Board was clearly within its power in directing reinstatement, with back pay, if found by it to be necessary to effectuate the purposes … This was an established policy of the respondent, not specially devised as a means to discriminate against union men.

Ronald Minzter v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 2024

Amblyopia, commonly referred to as ‘lazy eye,’ impairs the ability to see clearly. See Kirkingburg v. … But that evidence does not establish that ophthalmic surgeon was his only occupation.

DiGiacomo v. Teamsters Pension

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2005

ERISA § 204 establishes permissible accrual practices for pension plans. It makes no provision for break-in-service rules. … ERISA clearly answers this question in the affirmative.

United States v. Marquise Bell

947 F.3d 49 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 7, 2020

Relying on Anglin and Rosario, Bell argues that “more than a mere threat is required to establish physical restraint.” Appellant’s Br. 10. … We established a distinction between brandishing and otherwise using a weapon in United States v. Johnson, 199 F.3d 123, 127 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v.

Proceeding before the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia v. Johnson

790 F.3d 457 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 12, 2015

established Federal law.” … implement a new constitutional rule announced by the United States Supreme Court. 13 Taken together, these cases stand for the proposition that the state court, ethics board, or other appropriate entity can make and enforce clearly-established

George Lattera Angeline Lattera v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

437 F.3d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 14, 2006

We review the Tax Court’s legal determinations de novo, but we do not disturb its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Estate of Meriano v. Comm’r, 142 F.3d 651, 657 (3d Cir.1998). … As Marvin Chirelstein writes, the “ ‘substitute’ language, in the view of most commentators, was merely a short-hand way of asserting that carved-out interests do not qualify as capital assets.” Marvin A.

Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Sykes

833 F.2d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 1987

Section 504 provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to … Paragraph 27.77 simply established program-specific requirements for accessibility of services for the handicapped. Id. at 37492.

Lewis v. Hyland

554 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 19, 1977

afford a federal right in federal courts because, by reason of prejudice, passion, neglect, intolerance or otherwise, state laws might not be enforced and the claims of citizens to the enjoyment of rights, privileges, and immunities … Kugler, 446 F.2d 1343 (3d Cir. 1971), clearly was in harmony with Justice Blackmun's statements. 20 Plaintiffs' proofs here are responsive to our directive in Lewis v.