Case law

United States v. Louis Willis

844 F.3d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 13, 2016

McNair, 605 F.3d at 1190. 18 18 U.S.C. § 666(a). 13  Contrary to Willis’s contention, each § 666 Count that he challenges clearly alleged a quid pro quo. … operation, and purpose” of the federal funds sufficient to show that the Virgin Islands Legislature received a federal “benefit” within the meaning of § 666.42 Section 666, by its plain terms, limits its application to qualifying

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

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.

United States v. Kemble

198 F.2d 889 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 4, 1952

by the particular facts before us and which cannot be watered down is whether the attempted unionization of a trucking corporation by a bona fide labor organization, which had for its sole objective the employment of a qualified … Under those proofs if a violation of the Hobbs Act had been established the trial court would have been justified in submitting the indictment of the union to the jury.

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.

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.

Caterpillar, Inc. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers

107 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 4, 1997

Clearly, the statute contemplates payments to former employees for past services actually rendered by those former employees while they were employees of the company. … Under the Trailways test, there are three requirements for a “former employee” payment to qualify for the § 302(c)(1) exemption: (1) It must be for past, not present, services; (2) the services must be actually rendered;

Albert Thompson v. Bridgeton Board of Education

613 F. App'x 105 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 29, 2015

Under the third prong of the McDonnell Douglas framework, we ask whether the “record clearly allows a reasonable fact finder to conclude that [Appellees’] proffered explanation was a pretext for race-based discrimination … Thompson argues that because his employment history made him the most qualified candidate, and he was not hired, we must conclude that the interview process was a pretext for discrimination.

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital

612 F.2d 84 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 13, 1979

This legislation provides for the establishment of such standards. Id. at 16,517 . … The County defendants urge that the finding that they have such a financial incentive is clearly erroneous.

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.

United States Ex Rel. Erdem I. Cantekin v. University Of Pittsburgh

192 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 1999

The application may still be rejected based on the second vote, which establishes a "priority score." … Cantekin's affidavit alone establishes a dispute of fact as to whether Dr. Bluestone knowingly submitted false claims, I join the judgment of the Court.

Bruch v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

828 F.2d 134 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 1987

This fund was established pursuant to a contract between the union and the employers governing the terms of employment. … As a result of this provision, all qualifying pension plans contain the assurances required by this section. Plaintiffs can then sue on the basis of the plan language, as they have done here.

Kentucky West Virginia Gas Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

837 F.2d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 16, 1988

The statute very clearly requires that the gas costs which may be passed through to consumers must meet the standards set out in Sec. 1318. … A party is entitled to appear in person or by or with counsel or other duly qualified representative in an agency proceeding.... 13 There has been no challenge to the PUC's jurisdiction to issue an order governing representation

Danny R. Comperry and Velvet D. Comperry v. Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc. v. Deal & Moorefield, Inc., Third Party

928 F.2d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 1991

B. 31 Not all employers have immunity. The Act limits the immunity from suit to employers who have secured payment of compensation as they are required by the Act. … Rather than being an obstacle to coverage, the McEvilly court held that the fact that the injury occurred on the contractor's premises supported a finding that the contractor was clearly covered under the Act.

Harold W. Grausam, Jr. v. Henry S. Murphey, M.D., Individually and as Medical Director of Henry Landis State Hospital

448 F.2d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 7, 1971

At the same time, the findings of fact of the District Judge are entitled to substantial weight, and, in accordance with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, must be upheld unless they are found to be clearly … You have not established yourself as a member of the Medical Team. “f.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department Of Labor

540 F.2d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 1976

It is now clearly established that a seaman who is stricken with illness or injury is entitled to maintenance and cure even though the accident or illness occurs during shore leave not directly connected with the ship's business … The situs of claimant's injury qualifies as such an area since it is directly related to, and an essential part of, the employer's longshoring operations.

United States v. Martinez-Zayas

857 F.2d 122 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 1988

We cannot envision how Congress could have more clearly expressed its intent. … Senator Domenici stated that the use of illicit drugs “is clearly one of the biggest threats facing our society.” Id. at 14282 (daily ed. September 30, 1986).

Ronald Koons v. Attorney General New Jersey

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 10, 2025

Pennsylvania’s 1721 statute was titled “An Act to Prevent the Killing of Deer Out of Season, and Against Carrying of Guns or Hunting Not Qualified.” … Of course, such codes of conduct, whether private or public, were also immune from state and federal constitutional scrutiny.

Maureen Mcgurl v. Trucking Employees Of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.

124 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 1997

V. 52 ESTABLISHMENT OF ORDER OF BENEFITS DETERMINATION RULE A. … That plan's obligation to assume primary liability for a claimant would depend on the fortuity of a claimant's place of residence and application of that state's coordination of benefits law, a consequence clearly disfavored

800 Services Inc v. AT&T Corp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 2020

Essentially, it argues that its reading of the contract with AT&T was so clearly right that AT&T’s contrary reading was fraudulent. … It alleges that this check mark shows that the contract was not created but just renewed in 1994, so the company was immune from shortfall charges.