Case law

Lark v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

645 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 16, 2011

With no ‘firmly established and regularly applied rule’ clearly barring [Morris’] lengthy delay, Bronshtein, 404 F.3d at 708 , his belated hearing request was an acceptable attempt to pursue his claim in light of the information … This rationale clearly was not the basis for our holding in Morris . .

Gideon Goldstein v. Johnson Johnson & Johnson

251 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 25, 2001

The amount of these payments was capped in order for the plan to maintain its qualified status under the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. 415. … Further, it is well established in the caselaw that there is no cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty involving a top hat plan. See In re New Valley Corp., 89 F.3d at 153 ; accord Demery v.

Shannon & Luchs Company, and Warren K. Montouri, Inc. v. Mellon Bank, N.A.

868 F.2d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 22, 1989

Moreover, the provisions of the 1980 Act establish an expedited procedure for brokers with proper qualifications from other states to obtain a Pennsylvania broker’s license. 63 Pa.Stat.Ann. § 455.602 (“Any nonresident of … Any other result would countenance an outcome clearly contrary to the provisions of the Act. III. Under the 1980 Act, appellees may not maintain a suit for a real estate commission.

Arthur v. Maersk Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 13, 2006

However, it does not conclusively establish agency. Cf. Favorite v. … The District Court assumed that Arthur’s failure to name the United States qualified as a mistake.

Robert Cash v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

The ACA requires individuals who do not maintain qualifying health insurance, and do not qualify for a coverage exemption, to make an SRP, which the Act describes as a “penalty,” when filing their federal income tax return … Furthermore, the instructions for Form 1040X clearly state “Do not file Form 1040X if you are requesting a refund of penalties.”

Hayes v. Gilmore

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 4, 2020

Hayes was clearly anxious from not being able to place his call and not receiving his medication. Defendant Waine left, again promising to check on those issues. … immunity, which were not addressed by District Court and neither raised nor briefed in this Court. 8

John Dibiase v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation

48 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 1995

Thus, the district court used the standard for establishing a prima facie case in the typical age discrimination case. … He would say simply that DiBiase clearly abjured any intention to proceed under a disparate impact theory, and *732 therefore there is no disparate impact claim before us. .

Williams v. Beard

637 F.3d 195 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 9, 2011

If a petitioner’s claim has been adjudicated on the merits in state court, habeas relief is precluded unless the state court’s decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … The racial composition of the venire and jury was clearly established. In short, the PCRA proceeding was comprehensive. Williams identifies no potential facts which a second evidentiary hearing is likely to unearth.

Eckenrode v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

164 F.2d 996 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 18, 1947

Sunderlin was a qualified engineer, so that no negligence may be imputed to defendant on that score. … For the purposes of this case, plaintiff need only establish that Sunderlin failed to observe Eckenrode at a time when he had a duty to. do so.

Lovell Manufacturing v. Export-Import Bank Of The United States

843 F.2d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 31, 1988

Lovell I thus establishes that there is no direct governmental interest in this case. Without any such interest, we are unable to find any jurisdictional basis upon which to ground this cause of action. … After all, the purpose of Sec. 1442 removal is to protect federal officials from unfriendly state forums, to allow the official to raise defenses (such as immunity) arising out of his official duties, and to insure an impartial

Joseph Aruanno v. Marcyves Maurice

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 30, 2019

Maurice filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that no evidence in the record supported Aruanno’s claims for excessive force, and in the alternative, that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, Maurice argues that even if the incident occurred as alleged, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Doyle v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

398 F. App'x 779 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 2010

that he was required by the relevant operating rules to become re- qualified on each route on which he had been qualified before his termination (which, in Doyle’s case, was every route). … They are based solely upon the facts and circumstances of this particular case and do not establish any precedent.

Hanover Potato Products, Inc. v. Shalala

989 F.2d 123 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 1993

The district court held that although Hanover was a qualified prevailing party under the EAJA, the government’s position in defending Hanover’s claim was substantially justified. … We have held that “a legal, position is substantially justified if it relates to an unsettled or close question of law, but not if it offends established precedent.” Russell v.

In the Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled October 18, 1979. Appeal of Edwin J. Hughes and Alfred C. Decotiis

633 F.2d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 8, 1980

Those questions are,, first, whether the information sought is work product, and second, if so, should the qualified privilege yield to a higher necessity. … But as Chief Judge Seitz in that case makes clear, application of the qualified work product protection involves a balancing of competing considerations.

Price v. Chaffinch

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2007

Price and Warren further assert that their speech to the State Auditor qualifies for protection under the Petition Clause. … Under the rule established in Garcetti, Price and Warren spoke out about the maintenance of the bullet trap “pursuant to their official duties.”

In re Penn Central Transportation Co.

771 F.2d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 1985

Litton could not establish a firm agreement with PCTC, and thus explored alternatives with other railroads, particularly the C & O. … Pinney and Litton do not contend that the court's factual findings are clearly erroneous.

Chemetron Corporation v. Jones

72 F.3d 341 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 21, 1995

Under Rule 3003(c)(3), these proofs of claim must be filed prior to a bar date established by the bankruptcy court. … The bankruptcy court's expansive test departed from established rules of law and produced a result in conflict with other decisions.

United States v. Lorenzo Gonzalez, A/K/A "Tito," United States of America v. Modesto Anthony Caba, United States of America v. Raphael Vasquez

918 F.2d 1129 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 8, 1991

When appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, it is well established that, in a review following conviction, all issues of credibility within the province of the jury must be viewed in the … The factors are subject to a pair of caveats: (1) there can be more than one individual who qualifies as a leader or organizer and (2) merely suggesting an offense does not make an individual the leader. Id. 10 .

David Ungar v. Dunkin' Donuts of America, Inc. And Quincy Adams Donuts, Inc. C/o C.T. Corporation, in No. 75--1625. John Rader, an Individual v. Dunkin' Donuts, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Dunkin' Donuts of America, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation, in No. 75--1626

531 F.2d 1211 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 3, 1976

To qualify for interlocutory review in this circuit a class certification decision must be attended by special factors which take it outside the ambit of the general rule. Katz v. … Rather, many of the clauses were quite clearly detrimental to their interests, and they alleged that they had continually objected to them.

Independent Entr Inc v. Pittsburgh Water

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 9, 1997

Section 1983 was not intended to override 'well established immunities or defenses under common law.'" Bolden, 953 F.2d at 816. … Second, the Will Court also recognized that "in enacting § 1983, Congress did not intend to override well- established immunities under the common law." 491 U.S. at 67.