Case law

Mohamed Barry v. David Anderson

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 6, 2023

The District Court declined to reach the question of whether Zamar was entitled to qualified immunity. Barry timely appealed. II. … We have considered Barry’s arguments and conclude that the 3 We have no need to reach the separate question of whether Zamar is entitled to qualified immunity. Bistrian v.

United States of America Ex Rel. Carl G. Gerchman v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

355 F.2d 302 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 1966

Justice Cardozo: “The right to trial by jury and the immunity from prosecution except as the result of an indictment may have value and importance. … There have also been proposals for broadened appellate review of sentencing so as to establish more objective and therefore less personal, judicial standards.

Robert Spann v. J. Lauritzen

344 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 19, 1965

Clearly the maritime jurisdiction extended to the act of reaching into the vessel and removing cargo. Such removal, having a beginning, had to have an end. … rule that the shipowner is absolutely liable for the results of defects in unloading equipment brought on board ship by the stevedoring company should not be qualified or modified if the unloading equipment thus used happens

71 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 801, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,370 Judith S. Dici v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement Frank H. Monaco Steven B. Brison

91 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 31, 1996

Also, Dici was clearly a party to the workmen's compensation proceeding. … Both Brison and Monaco certainly qualify as "person[s]" and "employee[s]" under § 955(e).

Rita Bhatt v. Attorney General United States

608 F. App'x 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 2, 2015

The IJ concluded that Bhatt had met her burden of proof to establish the likelihood of being tortured by her family if she were to return to India because of her inter-caste marriage. … He noted that to qualify for withholding of removal under CAT, an applicant must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured if removed to the country at issue.

Pothering v. Parkson Coal Co.

861 F.2d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 1988

Administrative practice, however, did not comport with legislative intent, and twice Congress was impelled to specify its intentions more clearly, “in order to insure as broad coverage as possible.” Echo v. … Conrad, a board certified radiologist who was qualified as an expert and who read three separate x-rays of Mr. Pothering as positively showing pneumoconiosis. App. at 26.

Lighthouse Inst v. Long Branch

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 27, 2007

First, Lighthouse has offered to waive its rights under it in perpetuity; second, a State cannot “immunize” itself against a constitutional duty by artificially creating a distinction that it can then invoke to justify disparate … An “institution” is “an established organization or corporation ... esp. of a public character.”

United States v. Ninety-Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars & Fifty-Seven Cents

307 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2002

These payments could not have been payments for groceries because, as the affidavit clearly sets forth, these stores sold few if any groceries. … We reject the argument that this 11-month gap rendered the information in the affidavit so clearly stale that reasonable officers could not have believed that the warrant was valid.

James Walsh v. Kerry Walsh

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 13, 2019

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff “must establish that she was deprived of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a state actor.” Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 646 (3d Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). … Neither Kerry nor Henninger qualifies. See Angelico v.

Graham v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Graham)

973 F.2d 1089 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 1992

In 1974, Graham testified before the grand jury under a grant of immunity. Id. at 383 . … United Shoe Machinery Corp., [ 392 U.S. 481, 496 , 88 S.Ct. 2224, 2233 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1231 (1968)], or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed, see, e.g., Allen v.

Twin Disc, Incorporated, Cross-Appellant v. Big Bud Tractor, Inc., and Third-Party Cross v. Grad-Line, Incorporated, Third-Party

772 F.2d 1329 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 5, 1985

Big Bud argues that Wisconsin law clearly allows recovery in tort of purely economic losses by one who is not an ultimate user or consumer, and Twin Disc and Grad-Line argue that Wisconsin law clearly provides to the contrary … Although the question is a close one, we affirm the district court’s finding that this is the kind of explicit course of conduct that qualifies as express assent.

Wise v. American General Life Insurance Company

459 F.3d 443 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2006

Because there was no insurance policy in effect at the time of Wise's death, Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case under the bad faith statute. … Wise indicated on his insurance application that he qualified for Temporary Insurance. ( Id. ) 2 Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Kady-Ann Cox v. SEPTA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 26, 2026

Because she does not offer direct evidence of discrimination, we use the familiar framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … We agree with the District Court that Cox cannot show that she was “qualified for the position in question,” one of the elements of a prima facie case. Burton, 707 F.3d at 426.

Narin v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 10, 2000

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) she was over 40 at the time she applied for the position in question; (2) she was qualified for the position in question … The appropriateness of the district court's decision to grant summary judgment on Count IV also is supported by Narin's failure to establish that she was qualified for the position: element two of the prima facie case.

United States v. Algon Chemical Inc., a Corporation, and Edward Latinsky, an Individual

879 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 11, 1989

The FDCA, enacted in 1938 and amended in 1962 and 1968, establishes procedures for review of drug safety and efficacy by the FDA. … In so holding, the Court did not except from the prohibition the sale of Laetrile to medical doctors and thus clearly upheld the FDA’s authority to restrict the flow of drugs to or by medical practitioners.

In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation

751 F.2d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 13, 1984

Clearly, however, the letters are hearsay, and thus inadmissible against the objectors unless they qualify under one of the exceptions in Rule 803. … We have in Part V.B., supra, held that they do not qualify under Rule 803(24)(B). The only other exception arguably relevant is Rule 803(6), records of regularly conducted business activity.

United States v. Grober

624 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 26, 2010

Because he qualified for five sentencing enhancements pursuant to USSG § 2G2.2, however, Grober’s base offense level rose to 40. … Agent Chase was not qualified “to distinguish between ‘bad’ child pornography and ‘really bad’ child pornography,” Grober, 595 F.Supp.2d at 401 .

Schuchardt v. President of the United States

839 F.3d 336 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 5, 2016

He also agreed that his claim for monetary damages under FISA was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and that he was no longer pursuing his claims under the First Amendment. Id. at 10–11. … Feb. 10, 2015) (holding that plaintiffs had failed to establish their standing to challenge Upstream, another putative NSA electronic surveillance program, because “the evidence at summary judgment [was] insufficient to establish

Inst Inv Grp v. Avaya Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2009

Applicability of the Safe Harbor Shareholders contend the District Court erred in applying the Safe Harbor to immunize certain statements. … Other courts, however, have qualified Higginbotham’s strong skepticism of confidential sources. The Seventh Circuit itself distinguished Higginbotham in Tellabs II.

United States v. Jermane E. Bonner

363 F.3d 213 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 2004

As there are many crimes which do not involve narcotics trafficking, an area could be one in which there is a high volume of crime, but does not qualify as a "high narcotics trafficking area." … that an area is a "high crime area" versus establishing an officer's good faith belief that it is one.