Case law

In the Matter of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor. Appeal of Joseph A. Schafer, Whitney W. Irons, Alton P. Gainer, Emil Milan, Carol Kuchar, Leo Sukala, Stephen Sloboda, Charles W. Hannon, and Philip Morton, in Nos. 78-1715, 78-2321 and 78-2336. In the Matter of Penn Central Company, Debtor

596 F.2d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 1, 1979

These facts are insufficient to establish an estoppel against the Trustees. … This is a factual finding and appellants have not shown it to be clearly erroneous.

United States v. Serge Kowalchuk, A/K/A Serhij Kowalczuk Appeal of Serge Kowalchuk

773 F.2d 488 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 23, 1985

Although the burden of proof upon the Government in a denaturalization proceeding is heavy, a certificate of citizenship is not immune from challenge. … The burden of proof shall be upon the person who seeks to establish his eligibility under this Act.

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.

United States v. Green

617 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 9, 2010

All of the formulations used by the courts of appeals purport to embody the same test, but clearly they are not interchangeable. … Whether evidence qualifies as intrinsic in a particular case may well depend on which version of the test one employs.

Horvath v. Keystone Health Plan East, Inc.

333 F.3d 450 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

First, with regard to injunctive relief, it is well-established that "[t]he actual or threatened injury required by Art. … She has clearly failed to do so.

United States v. John Cioffi Mussare, Iii, A/K/A J.J. John Cioffi Mussare, III

405 F.3d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 2005

We will not interpret the jury’s acquittal on the heroin charge as a rejection of Taylor’s testimony, and that testimony clearly provides evidence that the transaction was a loan. … Mussare argues that these statements did not qualify under that exception and that the admission of those statements violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause.

Dickler v. CIGNA Property & Casualty Co.

957 F.2d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 27, 1992

We cannot say that these findings made by the District Court were clearly erroneous. … This finding, which was not clearly erroneous, precluded reliance on Held’s “economic obsolescence” figure.

Knecht, Inc. v. United Pacific Insurance Company

860 F.2d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 17, 1988

Additionally, the court determined that the contract restricted the subcontractor to payment of obligations for which liens had been established. 372 Pa. at 69 , 92 A.2d at 556 . … The bond clearly provides that the principal and surety are jointly and severally liable for the benefit of the claimants.

Riverway Harbor Service, St. Louis, Inc. v. Bridge & Crane Inspection, Inc.

263 F.3d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 2001

"'Abuse of discretion occurs if the district court reaches its conclusions by applying erroneous legal principles or relying on clearly erroneous factual findings.'" Randolph v. … Henn, 354 U.S. 147, 152-53 (1957) (holding that "[t]he Act is not one of immunity from liability but of limitation of it," which does not include any other privileges, such as exoneration).

Joseph Price v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America C/o Mr. John Greeley, and Eastern Express Inc

457 F.2d 605 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 16, 1972

Section 7 of the same article, however, substantially qualifies the rule laid down in Section 5(b) (2). … Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 352-354 , 84 S.Ct. 363 , 11 L.Ed.2d 370 (1964), which clearly states a preference for permitting management and labor to amend or modify their contracts as they see fit.

In re Penn Central Transportation Co.

596 F.2d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 1979

These facts are insufficient to establish an estoppel against the Trus *1162 tees. … This is a factual finding and appellants have not shown it to be clearly erroneous.

NCAA v. Governor of New Jersey

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

PASPA has clearly stymied New Jersey’s attempts to “We review a district court’s grant of summary 4 judgment de novo . . . .” Viera v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011). … Thus, the 2014 Law provides the authorization for conduct that is otherwise clearly and completely legally prohibited.

Melvin P. Deutsch v. United States

67 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 12, 1995

Section 1915(d) also authorizes the dismissal of a complaint as factually frivolous if a court determines that the contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328 , 109 S.Ct. at 1831, 1833 . … Id, We also recognize that "extreme circumstances” might justify denying an otherwise qualified affiant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lockhart v. D’Urso, 408 F.2d 354 , 355 (3d Cir.1969) (per curiam).

Reliance Insurance v. Moessner

121 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 1997

The effect of the TPE would be to immunize Reliance from defending and paying the products liability tort claim brought against VE in federal court by Mark Moessner, who sustained carbon monoxide poisoning as the result of … The appeal arises out of a declaratory judgment action brought by Reliance against VE which sought to establish that VE’s CGL policy did not cover Moessner’s claims.

Greate Bay Hotel & Casino v. Tose

34 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 1994

However, the Supreme Court partially modified and qualified the Appellate Division’s rationale. Id. at 1318-19. … An Overview of the Casino Control Act The New Jersey Legislature adopted the Act to “authorize casino gaming and establish the regulatory framework for the casino industry.” Knight v.

David A. Davis v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc., a Corporation, and National Maritime Union of America, Afl-Cio, Port of Pittsburgh

697 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 10, 1983

Assuming, as alleged, that the Union approved the settlement agreement, including its retroactive seniority provisions, even though it failed to sign it, it does not follow that the agreement qualifies as a contract “between … The issue of subject matter jurisdiction must be considered as separate from an evaluation of the merits as long as the *555 federal claim does not appear clearly “immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction

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.

Robert E. Douglas v. Ronald H. Cathel, Administrator of New Jersey State Prison the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, Zulima Farber.

456 F.3d 403 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 8, 2006

Douglas’s petition does not turn on the § 2254(d)(2) standard since he is arguing that his detention is the result of an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent to the facts under § 2254(d) … The District Court stated that is was “constrained to deny Petitioner relief on this ground because the Appellate Division’s decision did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law....”

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Davis

561 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 27, 2009

In Raffel , a case decided decades before both Miranda and Doyle , the Supreme Court *1188 concluded that Fifth Amendment “immunity from giving testimony is one which the defendant may waive by offering himself as a witness … Ed. 2d 432 (1997) (“[T]he canon of strict construction of criminal statutes, or rule of lenity, ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered.”).

United States v. Armocida

515 F.2d 29 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 23, 1975

Greene's affidavit clearly meets these two requirements. … By this standard, Greene's affidavit is clearly sufficient to support the finding made by the court. B.