Case law

John Rodriguez v. Natl City Bank

726 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 12, 2013

That amendment “was designed to function as an additional requirement, not a superseding direction” respecting the class-qualifying criteria of Rule 23(a) and (b). Amchem, 521 U.S. at 621. … The Supreme Court concluded that that evidence was insufficient to establish commonality.

United States v. Corey Grant

887 F.3d 131 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 9, 2018

Grant clearly argued that the District Court was required to resentence de novo on all counts. … Furthermore, the specific circumstances of this case clearly favor the application of the sentencing package doctrine.

Pennsylvania Family Institute, Inc. v. Black, III

489 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 25, 2007

In re Application of Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 603, 608 (2d Cir.1988). 28 Therefore, in order to maintain a "right to listen" claim, a plaintiff must clearly establish the existence of a "willing speaker." … Without such a showing, PFI cannot establish that the questionnaire respondents qualify as willing speakers. 45 Despite a trial on the merits in which PFI had every opportunity to call witnesses or present other forms of

J'Amy Kluender v. United States Liability Insurance Co Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 10, 2026

We will assume for the purposes of our analysis that Kluender could establish a prima facie of retaliation here. … Finally, Kluender could not establish a failure to accommodate claim under the ADA based on her request for accommodations in May 2021.

Galli v. NJ Meadowlands Comm

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 20, 2007

Although Congress or a state legislature could clearly give courts that 26 power, we judges should not give it to ourselves. I. … These are the appropriateness of the district court’s charge that plaintiffs had to prove that politics was a ‘substantial motivating factor’ in their demotion, whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity,

Delaware Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co.

109 F. 334 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 22, 1901

It could not suddenly depart from the unbroken custom, that had been so long established, without previous notice of its intention so to do.” … In the course of his opinion, Dewey, J., in reciting the facts of the case, distinguishes it clearly from E. Carver Co. v. Manufacturers’ Ins. Co.

United States v. James Palmieri

21 F.3d 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 11, 1994

The record clearly supports Palmieri’s claim of collector exception to Count Two. … Palmieri is clearly within the protection of the Raley rule.

In Re: Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefit "Erisa" Litigation Frederick E. Tonnies William M. Leonhardt David S. Kahl Robert E. Wilt Clay A. Bernichon Solveig Tschann Frederick W. Horpe Ludson F. Worsham Edwin Marjala Kenyon T. Bement Donald E. Wagner Lucius O. Browne, Donald F. Fabry Thomas L. Durkin Bernard J. Hart Ronald R. Bennett Herman Hein Donald L. Thompson, Individually and on Behalf of All Members of the Sperry, Burroughs and Unisys Classes (Mdl 969)

242 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 20, 2001

Because the purpose of the 3-year limitation is clearly to serve as a cutoff, we hold that tolling principles do not apply to that period. 38 Id. at 363. 39 Although the specified duration of the limitations periods here … In so holding, it permits the ERISA statute of limitations to become an instrument to immunize fiduciary wrongdoing. 85 The "fraud or concealment" provision incorporates the long-established principle of federal common law

In Re Tmi. Metropolitan Edison Company ("Met Ed") Pennsylvania Electric Company Jersey Central Power & Light Company General Public Utilities Corp. Babcock & Wilcox Co. McDermott Inc. Dresser Industries, Inc. Ue & C--Catalytic, Inc. (Raytheon) Burns & Roe Enterprises, Nos. 94-7600/7601, and Metro Edison Company ("Met Ed") Pennsylvania Electric Company Jersey Central Power & Light Company General Public Utilities Corp. Babcock & Wilcox Co. McDermott Inc. Dresser Industries, Inc. Ue & C--Catalytic, Inc. (Raytheon) Burns & Roe Enterprises, No. 94-7602

67 F.3d 1119 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 17, 1995

Because the TMI accident occurred in 1979, well before the effective date of the 1988 Amendments, the qualified prohibition does not apply here. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2210 note (1988) (Effective Date of 1988 Amendment). … The district court correctly reasoned: 27 In passing the [Amendments] Act, Congress clearly had an opportunity to overturn the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Silkwood.

Knapik v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 17, 2004

Nonetheless, both Nugent and Munroe approach.9 found it proper to examine the amount of loss established. … the Government has supplied employer bank, petitioner avoided (and we can think of) no principled reason admitting that she intended to defraud, not to apply the formal categorical thus not qualifying

Brown v. Dept Corr PA

265 F. App'x 107 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2008

The record establishes that Brown was confined in administrative custody because of his potential involvement in an inmate assault, that he was then placed in disciplinary custody for breaking prison rules, and that he … We also find it unnecessary to reach the questions whether individuals may be liable for monetary damages under the RLUIPA and whether qualified immunity applies here. 4 Although the Magistrate Judge addressed a substantive

John O'neill v. City Of Philadelphia

32 F.3d 785 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 1994

Clearly, it is. See Williams v. … expansion of the Younger abstention doctrine is clearly unwarranted.

United States v. Carl D. McBane

433 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 2005

The record clearly establishes that McBane sold the rifle. As we have indicated, our standard of review precludes us from assessing the credibility of Smith’s testimony. … Most clearly, the Ninth Circuit, citing and discussing the above language from Kungys in United States v.

Miguel Duran v. Bruce Weeks

399 F. App'x 756 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 29, 2010

and the Prosecutor’s Office because those entities do not constitute “persons” for purposes of section 1983, as well as the claims against Judge Weeks and the prosecutor, holding that those defendants were entitled to immunity … Since Duran’s section 1983 action seeking to enjoin his criminal prosecution presents the classic case for Younger abstention, the District Court’s dismissal of Duran’s complaint on that basis was clearly appropriate.4

Glory Obianuju Ezeagwuna v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

325 F.3d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 14, 2003

The memo was therefore clearly not available prior to the close of evidence. … extraordinary, and would clearly substantiate the respondent’s claim.

National Book Consolidators, Inc., in 81-1588 v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board, in 81-2295 v. Adp Transport Corp.

672 F.2d 323 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 1982

On the whole the legal profession is comprised of well trained, qualified, and diligent lawyers. … [by] diligently undertaking] the work and study necessary to qualify himself.”

Hassine v. Jeffes

846 F.2d 169 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 29, 1988

(“the plaintiff’s attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation ... and ... must not have interests antagonistic to those of the class”), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1011 , 95 S.Ct … Although Rule 23 establishes these two prerequisites as separate and distinct, the analyses overlap, and therefore these concepts are often *177 discussed together. E.g., Droughn v. F.M.C.

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.

Gulf Oil Corporation, in No. 82-3035 v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Philadelphia Gas Works, Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Public Service Electric and Gas Company, New Jersey Natural Gas Company, Washington Urban League, the Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Intervenors. Gulf Oil Corporation, in No. 82-3132 v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Philadelphia Gas Works, Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Washington Urban League, and Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Intervenors. Washington Urban League, in No. 82-3137 v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Philadelphia Gas Works, Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, and Gulf Oil Corporation, Intervenors. The Public Service Commission of the State of New York, in No. 82-3166 v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Gulf Oil Corporation, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Intervenors, the Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Intervenor. Philadelphia Gas Works, in No. 82-3167 v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Gulf Oil Corporation, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Intervenors, the Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Intervenor. Gulf Oil Corporation, in No. 82-3242 v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Intervenors, Washington Urban League, Intervenor

706 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 1983

(II App. pp. 12-26). 15 The ALJ held that Gulf had not made out a prima facie case to establish force majeure volumes. … Storms qualify as a force majeure event because they are unexpected, and out of the party's control. (II App. p. 21).

United States v. Various Articles of Merchandise, Schedule No. 287 Alessandra's Smile, Inc.

230 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 23, 2000

Therefore, we are obliged to review independently the record to determine whether the District Court curtailed protected speech in its determination that the magazines were obscene. 1 *653 As we have stated, Bose Corp. established … These magazines qualify for First Amendment protection because of their political value.