Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,730 results
1.24s
Steinhardt Group Inc. v. Citicorp
126 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1997
Clearly Steinhardt has alleged sufficient facts to meet the first prong of Howey. The Steinhardt Group, through its affiliate, C.B. … The Limited Partnership Agreement (“LPA”), which establishes the relative powers of the partners in running the enterprise, therefore governs our inquiry.
Cited 15 timesPublished891 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 30, 2018
Shaw argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he “us[ed] force against th[e] other person” under Section 2241(a)(1). We disagree. … Under Rule 701, lay opinion testimony must be “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific
Cited 37 timesPublishedMaria Rosa Caguana Duchi v. Attorney General United States of America
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 27, 2026
-citizen daughter obtained approval of a Form I-130 petition that established Caguana as a qualifying relative for purposes of future immigration proceedings. … But to confer jurisdiction under this “settled course exception,” the limitation must be “clearly defined” and “tailored to the petitioner’s circumstances.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States v. Dominique Johnson
899 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 2018
Supreme Court precedent establishes that we review the trial record in cases like this one. See Johnson, 520 U.S. at 470. … We also relied on our precedent, which “establishes that § 2113(a)’s prohibition on taking . . .
Cited 54 timesPublishedFidelity Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Archer
179 F. 32 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 6, 1909
The receivers so appointed duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of their duties. … The receivers duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of their duties in Pennsylvania.
Cited 8 timesPublished826 F.2d 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 1987
We recognize that we may not fully comprehend the Director’s views and that the Secretary may wish to clarify the regulations to express his policy more clearly. … Wolff’s and the other reports clearly failed to satisfy the requirements of § 718.204(c)(4), we are not confident that these failures mandate rejection of Mangifest’s claim.
Cited 77 timesPublishedScott Hammersmith v. Tig Insurance Company (w.d. Of Pa. Civil Nos. 02-Cv-01829 & 03-Cv-01333)
480 F.3d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 15, 2007
An unreasonable delay in disclaiming coverage qualifies as an “act inconsistent with a lack of coverage.” Id. … Clearly, this runs contrary to the Restatement’s "preference that only one set of laws govern a given insurance contract.” United Brass Works, 819 F.Supp. at 469 .
Cited 265 timesPublishedDontaie Anderson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 21, 2022
We 2 He titled this filing “Amended Complaint,” see ECF No. 5 at 1, but as the District Court noted, “Anderson clearly intended that the Amended Complaint supplement, rather than replace, his Complaint,” Mem. 2 n.3, ECF … Anderson’s complaint failed to state a claim because he did not allege that the quarantine conditions were specifically imposed for the purpose of punishing him, and he did not establish that they were unconnected to a
Cited 0 timesUnpublished928 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.
Cited 2 timesUnpublishedDemocracy Rising PA v. John Celluci
380 F. App'x 155 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 14, 2010
immunity grounds. 3 The District Court expressly found that the prospective claims must be dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds. … contrary arguments raised by Plaintiffs on appeal, this Court finds that events that have occurred since this litigation was originally filed in the District Court 9 have clearly
Cited 0 timesUnpublished542 F.3d 70 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 3, 2008
The warrant identified Bernstein as the informant, and Kindler subsequently learned that Bernstein had been granted immunity so he could testify against Kindler. … The district court reasoned: ‘In considering [the prosecutor’s argument], we find it clearly constituted improper vouching and harmful, constitutional error.
Vacated on other grounds by Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53 (2009)Cited 18 timesPublishedMalley-Duff & Associates, Inc. v. Crown Life Insurance Co.
792 F.2d 341 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 1986
Clearly, we should not expect an epiphany through which the "essence" of civil RICO is revealed to us. … The former enjoy neither an inherent incapacity for criminal activity nor immunity from its consequences.
Cited 88 timesPublished638 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 17, 2011
Afterwards, the court informed the 3 “Possession” is clearly a common term and it may not, at first, appear to require definition. … The Stipulation In order to establish a violation of § 922(g)(1), the government must establish each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant has been convicted of a crime punishable
Abrogated on other grounds by Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019)Cited 33 timesPublishedEl v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA")
479 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2007
Lanning II, 308 F.3d at 292 (“It would clearly be unreasonable to require SEPTA applicants to score so highly on the run test that their predicted rate of [job] success be 100%. … Griggs, 401 U.S. at 436 (“Congress has not commanded that the less qualified be 21 preferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origins.”).
Cited 1 timesPublished956 F.2d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 1992
Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 , 109 S.Ct. 2463, 2466-67 , 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989). 81 The indemnification clause does not immunize the Commonwealth. … Although the plaintiffs are the certified class representatives of all nonmembers, their argument is clearly antagonistic to the interests of lower income nonmembers. 88 We, therefore, conclude that we should not now resolve
Cited 6 timesPublishedFannie Harrison v. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A.
111 F.3d 343 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 15, 1997
is no such exhaustion obligation, reasoning that the Lemon Law is a consumer statute that imposes burdens on manufacturers, but not on claimants, and that the regulations promulgated under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act clearly … As explained in the text, the FTC regulations were promulgated only with the Magnuson-Moss Act in mind, but the Lemon Law requires that qualifying mechanisms comply with the FTC regulations.
Cited 68 timesPublished176 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 1999
That answer does not clearly answer the question asked. It would not be unusual for one worker to settle an argument among other co-workers. … CONCLUSION 108 Substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that Attleboro's LPN charge nurses do not qualify as supervisors under section 2(11).
Cited 0 timesPublishedElliot Coal Mining Company, Inc. v. Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs
17 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 1994
Midland Bank, 551 F.2d 21, 34 (3d Cir.1977) (lack of a comma limited application of the qualifying language to the word immediately preceding it). … This distortion is made clearly apparent by the regulatory definition of "operator" which was promulgated after the 1977 amendments to the statute.
Cited 16 timesPublishedTunis Brothers Company, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
763 F.2d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 24, 1985
this veritable mountain of briefs and appendices, the trial judge, unintentionally of course, tilted the scale against plaintiffs by failing to factor into the overall conspiracy equation certain significant evidence that clearly … It in no way established "unity of purpose or common design among distributors and dealers on a horizontal level."
Vacated on other grounds by Ford Motor Co. v. Tunis Bros. Co., 475 U.S. 1105 (1986)Cited 39 timesPublished174 F.3d 305 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 1999
An abuse of discretion may be found when “the district court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.” International Union, UAW v. … Indeed, in describing the California statute, the Court in Storer observed that, apart from the fact that an independent candidate needed to "qualify for the ballot by demonstrating substantial public support” in some other
Cited 125 timesPublished
Ask Donna