Case law

Carolina Casualty Insurance v. Insurance Co. of North America

595 F.2d 128 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 5, 1979

.-5, 35 requires only that the self-insuring motor carrier establish its ability “to satisfy its obligations for bodily injury liability . .,” not any other party’s obligations. … denying reargument (114a-115a) that it looked solely to the federal motor carrier requirements for the source of the duties to pay and defend: “The primary responsibility to defend the Babcock action by Refrigerated is clearly

Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit

420 F.3d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2005

Appellee's Br. at 10. 33 Of course, the issue here is not whether Part C and Part B are the same; they clearly are not. … Although Part H and Part B "are distinct in notable respects, their basic structure and purpose are strikingly similar...." id., at 892 , Part B establishes an IEP, and part H establishes an IFSP. 13 The District Court reached

Robert H. Fox Co., a Copartnership, by Robert H. Fix, Liquidating Partner, and Robert H. Fix and Gladys E. Fox, Husband and Wife v. Keystone Driller Company and California Trust Company, Keystone Driller Company (Now Stardrill-Keystone Company), Keystone Driller Company, a Corporation (Now Stardrill-Keystone Company) v. Robert H. Fox Co., a Partnership, and Robert H. Fox and R. M. Hollowell, Trading and Doing Business as Robert H. Fox Co

232 F.2d 831 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 18, 1956

Such a finding was clearly within the discretion of the fact finder, and we cannot say that it is wrong. As we stated in Agitair Products Corp. v. F. C. … First, a proper qualifying basis for such testimony was not supplied. Second, the witness furnished the court with evidence upon which it could arrive at its own conclusion.

Joso Milutin v. E. P. Bouchard, District Director for Thenew Jersey District, Immigration and Naturalization Service. No. ,13651

299 F.2d 50 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 1962

The statute and regulations are clearly protective of the rights of the man who, it is claimed, is subject to being deported. … receive the ultimate relief;' Here, Congress clearly provided such a standard, and if the Attorney General has misapplied it, his action is subject to review.

United States v. Lawrence Neadle, Jr.

72 F.3d 1104 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 1996

Section lB1.3(a) establishes several important interpretive rules. … An insurance company, once qualified, is not required to keep the full $700,000 as part of its capital structure.

Jennifer Oldham v. Penn State University

138 F.4th 731 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 29, 2025

Under that canon of construction, Congress must clearly state any conditions on the grant of federal funds so that funding recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept those funds. … A chartered flight or one on which students are traveling with a university chaperone may well qualify.

Reynolds v. Department of Army

439 F. App'x 150 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 2011

with conclusory statements for which no basis in fact or personal knowledge was ever provided. 3 For this reason, we cannot conclude that the District Court’s evidentiary determinations were “arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly … A PIP differs significantly from the types of employment actions that qualify as adverse.

Napier v. Thirty or More Unidentified Federal Agents, Employees or Officers

855 F.2d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 1988

The record so clearly supports the district court’s dismissal on a variety of grounds that we might dispose of this issue summarily. … Congress, by its limited waiver of sovereign immunity, intended to limit the government’s liability, not its recovery. Accord Harris v.

Gang Yong Cai v. United States Attorney General

251 F. App'x 134 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 23, 2007

A person “who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization” qualifies as having been persecuted on account of political opinion, id., as does that person’s spouse. See Chen v. … Because, as we hold today, petitioner failed to establish his eligibility for asylum under the lesser “well-founded fear” standard, it follows that he is unable to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal under

Richardson v. Felix

856 F.2d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 1988

We shall not set aside the court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. … Trying to render sense out of the hodgepodge, it appears to me that Richardson may qualify as neither classified nor unclassified.

74 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1761, 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1158 Linda S. Walden James P. Murphy George C. Poirier v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. Virgil H. Gardner Michael A. Vidan Howard Schutte David M. Watson Curt Riggin Robert Lindsey James R. Hurd Felmer Cummins George Foster Rich Moody John Doe Jane Doe

126 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 26, 1997

The Jury Instruction: Did the Plaintiffs Introduce at Trial Sufficient "Direct" Evidence of Retaliatory Animus to Qualify for a Mixed Motives Instruction Under Price Waterhouse v. … The district court clearly stated at the outset of the hearing that its rulings were tentative and that it would reconsider those rulings at trial, and the court never retreated from that position.

A.S. GOLDMEN & COMPANY, INC. v. NEW JERSEY BUREAU OF SECURITIES, Appellant

163 F.3d 780 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 7, 1999

We are far too quick to allow New Jersey to proceed as though it had established a fraud it is not even alleging. … [the Court] has examined whether the State’s interest is legitimate and whether the burden on interest commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits.” Id. (citing Pike v.

New Jersey Retail Merchants Ass'n v. Sidamon-Eristoff

669 F.3d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 5, 2012

They would not be entitled to 20 receive those funds back if Chapter 25 is later found to be unconstitutional, due to state sovereign immunity. See Edelman v. … The State contends that its implementation of Chapter 25 through the Treasury Guidance comports with the priority rules established by the Supreme Court.

David Gerbier v. M. Francis Holmes, Acting District Director, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General.

280 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2002

It is well established that, when one interpretation of a statute or regulation obviously could have been conveyed more clearly with different phrasing, the fact that the authors eschewed that phrasing suggests, ceteris paribus … This cannot be what Congress intended in establishing a “uniform” immigration law.

Khaled Abdullah Khitham Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc. Audrey James Eardley James Velma George Kotnie George v. American Airlines, Inc. Khaled Abdullah and Khitham Abdullah, (No. 98-7055) Audrey James, Eardley James, Velma George and Kotnie George, (No. 98-7056)

181 F.3d 363 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 23, 1999

We therefore conclude, without serious question, that preemption is implied by the comprehensive legal scheme which imposes on the [Administrator] the duty of qualifying pilots for air service." 43 Id. at 4 . 44 Because the … Clearly, Congress did not intend to prohibit state damage remedies by this language.

United States v. Milan

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 3, 2002

Hargis was not clearly erroneous. … We also think it clear that Note 5 does not qualify, as Milan argues, as a "special instruction," a phrase which is used as a term of art in the Guidelines.

Rennie v. Klein

720 F.2d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 13, 1983

I agree with Judge Garth that persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution have a qualified constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication. … In addition, the regulations establish a system of review by other professional staff members at the institution.

Drinkwater v. Union Carbide Corp.

904 F.2d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 1990

Erickson clearly states that this kind of situation does not create a claim for sexual harassment. … Clearly, Austin thought that plaintiff might have had a discrimination claim.

In Re Graham

973 F.2d 1089 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 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.

Galda v. Rutgers

772 F.2d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 11, 1985

In minimizing PIRG's educational benefits, the majority determines sub rosa that this finding is clearly erroneous. … Justice Harlan found the situation clearly distinguishable from West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v.