Case law

United Parcel Service, Inc., a New York Corporation, and United Parcel Service, Inc., and Ohio Corporation v. United States Postal Service

604 F.2d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 1979

. § 402 established an Executive Committee. … Moreover, it is quite clear that, if Congress had intended to qualify the provisions of §§ 3622-23 by requiring Rate Commission approval of only nationwide changes, it could have accomplished that task in the same manner

Silvie Pomicter v. Luzerne County Convention Ctr

939 F.3d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 23, 2019

Protected speech is not immune from regulation. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 799 (1985) (“Even protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times.”). … But unlike in public forums, the government’s “burden to establish reasonableness” in nonpublic forums “is a light one.” Id. at 449.

John O'Connell v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority

649 F. App'x 280 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 23, 2016

Once a person establishes a domicile, this “gives rise to a presumption favoring an established domicile over a new one.” McCann, 458 F.3d at 286–87. … Clearly, New Jersey was “the center of [O’Connell’s] business, domestic, social and civic life.” Washington, 652 F.3d at 344 (quoting Frett- Smith, 511 F.3d at 401).

No. 98-5341

267 F.3d 196 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2001

This act established the Federal Communications Commission and granted it jurisdiction over the regulation of radio and wire transmissions. Id. … Because, in 1968, the Supreme Court determined that cable television distributors do not qualify as common carriers, 18 U.S.C. S 2510 (1) does not reach cable television transmissions. See United States v.

Braden v. University of Pittsburgh

552 F.2d 948 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 11, 1977

fashion. 36 Also, it should be observed that the difficulties of drawing a line between state and private action are by now well-recognized. 37 This is so because the realms of the government and the private sector are not as clearly … (emphasis added) Both parties have stipulated that, for purposes of 11th Amendment state immunity, the University of Pittsburgh is not to be deemed a state agency. See 392 F.Supp. at 123 .

Winston McPherson v. United States

392 F. App'x 938 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 2010

While recognizing that the statute clearly requires plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies, we rejected a pleading rule that would have required a complaint to allege facts demonstrating exhaustion. … “Whether a particular ground for opposing a claim may be the basis for dismissal for failure to state a claim depends on whether the allegations in the complaint suffice to establish that ground, not on the nature of the

The Pittston Company Buffalo Mining Company Clinchfield Coal Company Eastern Coal Corporation Elkay Mining Company Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation Kentland-Elkhorn Coal Corporation Meadow River Coal Company Pittston Coal Group Ranger Fuel Corporation v. United States of America, & Third Party v. Michael H. Holland, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Plan Elliot A. Segal, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund William P. Hobgood, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Marty D. Hudson, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Thomas O.S. Rand, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Gail R. Wilensky, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carl E. Van Horn, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carlton R. Sickles, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, Third Party the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Incorporated, Intervenor, and International Union, United Mine Workers of America, Party in Interest. The Pittston Company Buffalo Mining Company Clinchfield Coal Company Eastern Coal Corporation Elkay Mining Company Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation Kentland-Elkhorn Coal Corporation Meadow River Coal Company Pittston Coal Group Ranger Fuel Corporation v. United States of America, & Third Party v. Michael H. Holland, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Plan Elliot A. Segal, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund William P. Hobgood, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Marty D. Hudson, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Thomas O.S. Rand, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Gail R. Wilensky, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carl E. Van Horn, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carlton R. Sickles, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, Third Party the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Incorporated, Intervenor, and International Union, United Mine Workers of America, Party in Interest. The Pittston Company Buffalo Mining Company Clinchfield Coal Company Eastern Coal Corporation Elkay Mining Company Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation Kentland-Elkhorn Coal Corporation Meadow River Coal Company Pittston Coal Group Ranger Fuel Corporation v. United States of America, & Third Party v. Michael H. Holland, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Plan Elliot A. Segal, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund William P. Hobgood, 4 Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Marty D. Hudson, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Thomas O.S. Rand, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Gail R. Wilensky, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carl E. Van Horn, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carlton R. Sickles, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, Third Party and the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Incorporated International Union, United Mine Workers of America, Parties in Interest. The Pittston Company Buffalo Mining Company Clinchfield Coal Company Eastern Coal Corporation Elkay Mining Company Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation Kentland-Elkhorn Coal Corporation Meadow River Coal Company Pittston Coal Group Ranger Fuel Corporation v. United States of America, & Third Party Michael H. Holland, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Plan Elliot A. Segal, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund William P. Hobgood, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Marty D. Hudson, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Thomas O.S. Rand, Trustee of the 6 United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Gail R. Wilensky, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carl E. Van Horn, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carlton R. Sickles, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, Third Party and the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Incorporated International Union, United Mine Workers of America, Parties in Interest

368 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 18, 2004

The MPPAA was enacted to supplement ERISA and to establish the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to administer an insurance program for vested benefits. … The 95 retirees at issue were employed by signatory operators who clearly fit the definition in § 9706(a), albeit Eastern-like companies.

Tudor Development Group, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

968 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 1992

Quite clearly, the parties intended the letter to serve the same economic role as a performance bond would have: “to guarantee the proper completion of the improvements required by the Ordinance” (emphasis added). … The drafters of Article 5 took great pains to establish the independence principle in order to promote smooth commercial relations, but it does not follow that they intended to do away with subrogation simply because guarantors

Ogden Fire Co No 1 v. Upper Chichester Twp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 2007

established that Ogden’s property was not the only site that would remedy Sprint’s problem. … JA at 50.19 (Township’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Facts Established at the Hearings, ¶ 34).

Greater Phila Chamber Commerce v. City of Philadelphia

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 6, 2020

wage history, requir[ing] disclosure of wage history, or condition[ing] employment or consideration for an interview or employment on disclosure of wage history[.]”134 Unlike the Reliance Provision, the Inquiry Provision clearly … Servs., 427 F.3d 466, 468-70 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that prior salary alone can justify wage disparities). 52 previously.”241 Nevertheless, the City did produce such evidence here and clearly

Greater Phila Chamber Commerce v. City of Philadelphia

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 6, 2020

wage history, requir[ing] disclosure of wage history, or condition[ing] employment or consideration for an interview or employment on disclosure of wage history[.]”134 Unlike the Reliance Provision, the Inquiry Provision clearly … Servs., 427 F.3d 466, 468-70 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that prior salary alone can justify wage disparities). 52 previously.”241 Nevertheless, the City did produce such evidence here and clearly

Urvashi Bhatnagar, an Infant by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Kalpana Bhatnagar Kalpana Bhatnagar, Individually v. Surrendra Overseas Limited Apeejay Lines, in Personam M v. Apj Karan, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc. In Rem, Surrendra Overseas Limited, to the Res Apeejay Lines, in Personam and the M/v Apj Karan, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc. In Rem, in No. 93-2059. Urvashi Bhatnagar, an Infant by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Kalpana Bhatnagar Kalpana Bhatnagar, Individually v. Surrendra Overseas Limited Apeejay Lines, in Personam M v. Apj Karan, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc. In Rem, Urvashi Bhatnagar, an Infant by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Kalpana Bhatnagar, and Kalpana Bhatnagar, Individually, in No. 93-2076

52 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 1995

Yet the Court qualified this statement: 29 In rare circumstances, however, where the remedy offered by the other forum is clearly unsatisfactory, the other forum may not be an adequate alternative, and the initial requirement … J.A. 16. 41 We do not believe this ruling was clearly erroneous.

Kaita v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 3, 2008

Withholding of Removal In order to qualify for withholding of removal,7 a petitioner must establish a “clear probability,” that is, that “it is more likely than not” that her life or freedom would be threatened if … She never said she “believed” it was the 25th, as the IJ characterized Kaita’s testimony; rather she clearly stated that when she was out of pain, she was at the hospital on January 25th.

Prior v. Innovative Communications Corp.

207 F. App'x 158 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 20, 2006

ICC clearly noticed it but never made it a point of contention before the District Court. … The District Court’s interpretation of the EBA, based on extrinsic 13 evidence, was not clearly erroneous.

Deblasio v. Zoning Board Of Adjustment For The Township Of West Amwell

53 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 1995

Pennsylvania clearly provides such remedies, as this case exemplifies, and therefore plaintiffs have no justifiable [procedural] due process claim. 33 Bello, 840 F.2d at 1128 (citations omitted). 34 New Jersey provides a … (finding plaintiff "possesses no property interest that entitles him to substantive due process protection"). 74 The majority falters, however, when it turns to the determination of exactly what property interests will qualify

Eric McCollister v. Superintendent Cameron

535 F. App'x 187 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2013

Instead, he limits his argument to the assertion that the state court rejection of his Sixth Amendment claim represented an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. … The Supreme Court has clearly established that there is a right to waive counsel and proceed pro se, provided that the waiver is knowing and voluntary. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 814 (1975).

United States v. Janet Schonewolf

905 F.3d 683 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 2018

In reversing the judgment affirming the sentence in Tapia, the Supreme Court determined that the District Court erred in “indicat[ing] that [Defendant] should serve a prison term long enough to qualify for and complete [the … Given that Schonewolf’s sentence was not legally erroneous, she cannot meet her burden of establishing plain error. V.

Fifth Third Bank of Western Ohio v. United States

402 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 31, 2005

We determined that this qualified as a counteroffer and remanded for the trial court to consider whether First Commerce had accepted the counteroffer. Id. at 1381-82 . … Those issues were clearly on the table and available as far as the FHLBB was concerned, and were clearly key considerations in the decisions of the Citizens Bank management.

Holly Smith v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2018

At the hearing, DCP&P argued that it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity because it did not qualify as a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … We thus find that Smith’s complaint does not establish the existence of a ministerial duty the performance of which may be compelled by writ of mandamus.

Vanderbilt v. Geo-Energy Ltd.

725 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 28, 1983

This court has declared that [ajdequate representation depends on two factors: (a) the plaintiff’s attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and (b) the plaintiff must … Yet, these cases are clearly distinguishable because in each case the derivative plaintiffs had initiated the other lawsuits against the corporate defendants to obtain a favorable settlement or in other ways to advance their