Case law

No. 94-3025

45 F.3d 780 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 1995

He found that 8 [t]he issues of state law clearly predominate in this matter. … accused DeBiase, a police supervisor, of malicious abuse of authority, abuse of police procedure, a conspiracy to terminate Moore, defamation, and violation of Sec. 1983 by depriving him of his "rights, privileges, and immunities

United States v. Cheryl Gordon

961 F.2d 426 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 1992

The Ninth Circuit noted that “[t]his prefatory qualifier indicates that the added provision was intended' to take precedence over the general language of subsection (a)(2) in cases where the probationer violates probation … Clearly, Congress’ goal of curbing drug abuse would be frustrated by such an interpretation. 8 III.

United States v. Moorer

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

Note 1 Ignoring Note 1, Moorer attempts clearly defines a “prior felony conviction” to import purportedly … qualifies as a “prior felony conviction” for We believe that Carrillo’s interpretation of purposes of career offender status whether Note 7 is preferable to Mason’s that conviction results

Chen v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 29, 2005

Corroboration is not necessarily required to establish a petitioner’s right to asylum, and relief may be granted solely on the credible testimony of the applicant. 8 C.F.R. § § 208.13(a), 208.16(b). … He clearly identified facts for which it was reasonable to expect corroboration, he properly found that such corroboration was lacking, and he analyzed the lack of adequate explanations for Chen’s failure to produce corroboration

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,706 Pittsburgh Terminal Corporation v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, W. James Price, Alonzo G. Decker, Jr., James Parker Nolan, Frederick Deane, Jr., James L. O'keefe, Gregory S. Devine, Fay A. Le Favre, Nicholas T. Camicia, Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, Steven Muller, John K. Stevenson, Hays T. Watkins, Howard E. Simpson and Cyrus S. Eaton, All Directors or Former Directors of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad And/or the Chessie System, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and Chessie System, Inc. Monroe Guttmann, Loretta Guttmann, Janet Rees and Evelyn Bittner v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, W. James Price, Alonzo G. Decker, Jr., James Parker Nolan, Frederick Deane, Jr., James L. O'keefe, Gregory S. Devine, Fay A. Le Fevre, Nicholas T. Camicia, Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, Steven Muller, John K. Stevenson, Hays T. Watkins, Howard E. Simpson and Cyrus S. Eaton, All Directors or Former Directors of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad And/or the Chessie System, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and Chessie System, Inc

680 F.2d 933 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 3, 1982

Clearly, however, it was bad business for the Bondholders. … Paul Armstrong Co., 263 N.Y. 79, 87 , 188 N.E. 163, 167 (1933)). 91 Such an analysis is clearly inappropriate.

Roy A. Johnson v. Verne Orr

780 F.2d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 17, 1986

We do not reach the issue of military immunity, which appellants did not brief, because it is not part of the question certified by the district court. Cf. Ungar v. … The Rowe court, however, quite clearly held that civilian supervisors could be liable under section 1983.

United States v. Luis Figueroa

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 25, 2026

If he does, “the Government then bears the burden of establishing compliance with the statute of limitations by presenting evidence that the crime was committed within the limitations period or by establishing an exception … We do not read our opinion in Ciavarella to establish so broad a rule.

41 Fair empl.prac.cas. 273, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,251 District Council 47, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Afl-Cio by Its Trustees Ad Litem Cronin, Thomas Paine and Bell, Joann Muldrow, Marshall Walker, Herman v. Bradley, Honorable Edward J., President Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia Takiff, Honorable Harry A., Court Administrator, Adult Court, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia Cipriani, Nicholas, Administrative Judge, Family Court, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia Teti, Joseph, Deputy Court Administrator, Adult Court, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia Rosengarten, Dr. Leonard, Deputy Court Administrator, Family Division, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. Appeal of District Council 47, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Afl-Cio by Its Trustees Ad Litem Thomas Paine Cronin and Joann Bell Marshall Muldrow and Herman Walker

795 F.2d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 9, 1986

Where, as here, the complaint specifically alleges a violation of clearly identified liberty and property interests through specific actions, a suit against the officials involved should not be dismissed merely because it … L.Ed.2d 735 (1963) 4 Elsewhere, I have emphasized that statements in a published opinion must be drafted with extreme care: Published opinions are the principal means of carrying out the decisional process and, as such, qualify

Martin O. Washington v. Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Martin Washington

89 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 9, 1996

I agree that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the hours claimed by Mr. Epstein were “excessive and unreasonable.” Majority at 1039. … Descriptions such as this do not suffice in establishing the reasonableness of a fee petition." Dist. Ct. Opinion at 5. .

Ahlborn v. Arkansas Department Of Human Services

397 F.3d 620 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2005

While under treatment, Ahlborn applied and qualified for medical benefits under the Arkansas Medicaid program, administered in the State by appellee Arkansas Department of Human Services ("ADHS"). … This sort of broad ranging assignment requirement clearly would conflict with the federal anti-lien statute.

Surender Malhan v. State of New Jersey

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 7, 2023

But, contrary to Appellants’ contentions, we neither announced a new legal standard nor concluded the District Court’s decision that 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(10) does not provide a private right of action was clearly erroneous. … Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 343–44 (1997). 11 to rely on judicial immunity because “judicial officers do not have immunity from [d]eclaratory [r]elief when they as agents of the

Gilbert Martinez v. Eagle Disposal

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 8, 2019

Although Martinez claims on appeal that the District Court failed to “dissolve” his Rule 60(b) motion, the record clearly reflects that the District Court denied his motion. Dkt. #39. … See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 4 And of course, the judge’s absolute immunity could not be altered by Martinez’s SAC, nor did the SAC indicate any law by which the FBI might have waived its immunity.

Vente v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 2005

Discussion The Attorney General and his delegates may grant asylum to any alien who qualifies as a refugee under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). … An applicant who has not established past persecution “bear[s] the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecution is by a government or is government-sponsored.”

Reginald Roberts v. Risa Ferman

826 F.3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 17, 2016

Kelly’s failure to avail himself of established procedures—specifically, the procedures of Fed. R. App. P. 10(c)—for reconstructing the gaps in the record.”); Hawley v. … We explained that, after recreating the record according to Rule 10(c), in order “[t]o qualify for a new trial, . . . Sussman must make ‘a specific showing of prejudice’ from the absence of the transcripts.”

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Brathwaite, Edgar, in No. 84-3790. United States of America v. Brathwaite, Edgar, in Nos. 84-3791. United States of America v. Ottley, Peter, in No. 84-3792. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Ottley, Peter Edwin. Appeal of Peter Ottley

782 F.2d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 1986

But even leaving aside the content of Brathwaite's and Ottley's statements, we find that other evidence introduced at trial clearly showed that Brathwaite and Ottley were working closely together during the period June 12 … Likewise, we dismiss as spurious Ottley's argument that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof because the testimony of Grant and Brock was rendered incompetent by the existence of qualifying words in their answers

Uniroyal, Inc. v. George K. Hood, Defendants-Third Party Usco Services, Inc., Third Party

588 F.2d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 25, 1979

Ga.Code Ann. § 105-502. 36 In this case, Sam Hodges Company is clearly an independent contractor. … In any event, it bears remarking, as the court instructed the jury, that the defendant bore the burden of proof in establishing the affirmative defense.

Jones v. Ryan

987 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 5, 1993

for the removal of Negroes who [had] been selected as qualified jurors by the jury commissioners and who have survived challenges for cause, with the result that no Negroes ever serve[d] on petit juries." … Rather, the comments clearly suggest that the trial court entertained the objection of defense counsel as a charge of systematic racial discrimination.

American Trucking Ass'n v. Larson

683 F.2d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 20, 1982

Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168, 181 , 19 L.Ed. 357 (1869), limits application of the privileges and immunities clause to natural persons. … On the other hand, the Commonwealth vigorously challenges as clearly erroneous the district court’s finding that section 4703(a)(2) was not a legitimate safety measure.

Shade v. Panhandle Motor Service Corp.

91 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 11, 1996

We find that the district court did not clearly err in this case. A. … coverage under the plan because of a "qualifying event." 29 U.S.C.A. § 1161 (a) (West Supp.1996).

United States v. Raymont Bentley

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 1, 2023

Bentley now appeals, claiming the District Court clearly erred in applying this enhancement. Discerning no error, we will affirm. I. … Stat. § 1104(2), and thus still qualifies as a felony under the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(b) cmt. n.14(C). II.