Case law

United States v. Scripps

599 F. App'x 443 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 2015

As established at trial, Appellant partnered with his college friend Richard Gleeson to defraud Melissa and David of their share of the Scripps fortune. … Under that Rule, which “has a liberal policy of admissibility[,]” an expert witness must qualify as an expert and proffer relevant and reliable testimony. Pineda v.

John N. Dunham, Administrator of the Estate of Dorothy Louise Sipling, Deceased v. Frederick W. Wright and Frederick M. Wright

423 F.2d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 1970

the possible consequences and *944 risks inherent in the particular operation, and therefore impose upon a physician the duty to disclose to his patient the possible adverse results of an operation. 6 Although it is not clearly … Ervin, qualified as a medical expert, testified that Mrs. Sipling “had only one alternative and that was surgery. * * * If she had not been operated on, she would have died with mathematical certainty * * *.”

Bankers Trust Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

651 F.2d 160 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 15, 1981

And, certainly, in this circuit, industry standards and practices normally establish only minimal requirements, and do not create immunity from liability. Indeed, in Voegele Company, Inc. v. … Thus, we find it was clearly erroneous for the lower court to rule that the CORINTHOS was unseawor-thy.

Fang Lin v. Attorney General

270 F. App'x 183 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 20, 2008

The BIA did not clearly address the question of whether Petitioner was a “refugee.” … However, the BIA did not expressly adopt or repudiate the IJ’s determination that a petitioner who had an IUD forcibly inserted could not qualify as a “refugee” for “other resistance” to China’s coercive population control

State of NJ v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 1996

The APA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States and allows for judicial review of federal agency actions in certain circumstances. 5 U.S.C. 702. … However, the reimbursement authorized under that statute is qualified by the phrase, "[s]ubject to the amounts provided in advance in appropriation acts."

Donald Berger, Barbara Dallas, William Kier, Jr., Rose Saxman and Robert Wagner v. Edgewater Steel Company, a Subsidiary of Edgewater Corporation, Edgewater Corporation, Edgewater Steel Company, as Plan Administrator of the Non-Contributory Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, and John H. Kirkwood, an Individual. Appeal of Edgewater Steel Company and Edgewater Corporation, at Nos. 89-3465 & 89-3570. Donald Berger, Barbara Dallas, William Kier, Jr., Rose Saxman and Robert Wagner, at Nos. 89-3501 & 89-3596 v. Edgewater Steel Company, a Subsidiary of Edgewater Corporation, Edgewater Corporation, Edgewater Steel Company, as Plan Administrator of the Non-Contributory Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, and John H. Kirkwood, an Individual

911 F.2d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 1990

None of the Employees who brought this action was to be part of this reduction in force, and none of their positions was to be eliminated. 5 The Plan is a defined benefit, single employer, qualified plan, subject to the vesting … The district court was clearly correct in holding that Sec. 514(a) preempts the Employees' misrepresentation claims, since they relate to an employee benefit plan. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v.

Rose Art Industries, Inc. v. Carl Swanson

235 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 13, 2000

Rose Art admits that some of its packages combine features from more than one of the three subgroups for which it seeks trade dress protection but claims that even those packages fall "clearly within the Rose Art Family Trade … Disney must establish the existence of a recognizable trade dress. That is, Disney must establish that its videocassette packages have a consistent overall look.

Barry Young v. School District of Philadelphi

427 F. App'x 150 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 11, 2011

To establish a prima facie case, a Title VII plaintiff must demonstrate that: 1) he belongs to a protected class; 2) he was qualified for the position; 3) he was subject to an adverse employment action; and 4) the adverse … First, local governments and agencies are immune from suit for defamation. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8541; see also Keeler v. Everett Area Sch. Dist., 533 A.2d 836, 837 (Pa. Commw.

Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson

523 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 22, 2008

Although the ten-day time limit is clearly strict and mandatory, the circuit courts have carved out a narrow exception to the rigid ten-day time limit. … Accordingly, the denial of the Motion to Reconsider does not qualify as an order “granting or denying class action certification” within the meaning of Rule 23(f).

Burke County Board of Education v. Christian Lee Denton, by and Through His Parents and Legal Guardian Lee Edward Denton, Carolyn Denton v. Phillips A. Craig, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of North Carolina Haworth, Howard, Chairman, State Board of Education, State of North Carolina, Third Party

895 F.2d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 1990

This finding is not clearly erroneous, see Matthews v. … Sec. 1412 (5)(A), each state qualifying for federal assistance must establish procedural safeguards as required by Sec. 1415.

Mid-Century Insurance Co v. Chad Werley

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 5, 2024

Craley, 895 A.2d at 542.1 With that statutory background established, we turn to the facts presented by this appeal. … There, the Supreme Court clearly stated that policies that “explicitly exclude . . .

Kinney v. Yerusalim

9 F.3d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 1993

. § 12132 (Supp. 1991), provides: [N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or *1071 activities … Balancing these interests, Congress acknowledged the existence of an undue burden defense for existing facilities but clearly warned, “[n]o other limitation should be implied in other areas.” Id.

Mary Bridges v. Jose Torres, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 16, 2020

Bridges argues that Torres’ affidavit failed to establish probable cause because it was based on an informant’s tip lacking an adequate basis of knowledge and was uncorroborated by Torres. … Since no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, we will not address Torres’ qualified immunity defense.3 3 Lastly, Bridges also asserts tort claims under the NJTCA for intrusion on seclusion and negligence

In Re Penn Central Transportation Company. Appeal of Pinney Dock & Transport Company, Litton Industries, Inc., Litton Systems, Inc., Litton Great Lakes Corporation and Erie Marine, Inc

771 F.2d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 23, 1985

Sec. 15b (1976); 4) the doctrine established in Keogh v. … Pinney and Litton do not contend that the court's factual findings are clearly erroneous.

Lesko v. Lehman

925 F.2d 1527 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

Clearly, such testimony would have been self-incriminating. … The record clearly establishes the first element--"major participation in the felony committed."

Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner

893 F.2d 1468 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 1990

Further, McPartlan’s position as union shop steward did not immunize her from a lawful discharge. See NLRB v. Appletree Chevrolet, Inc., 608 F.2d 988 , 994 n. 5 (4th Cir.1979). … Thus, Kenrich argues, the employer failed to establish a legitimate objective basis for the discharge as required by Parker-Robb and was properly held liable for its violation of section 8(a)(1).

Pierre v. Attorney General of United States

528 F.3d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2008

The specific issue on appeal concerns what degree of intent Pierre must establish in order to obtain relief under the CAT. … Willful blindness can be used to establish knowledge but it does not satisfy the specific intent requirement in the CAT. See United States v.

In Re: Lan Associates Xi, L.P. Patricia A. Staiano, United States Trustee v. James J. Cain, Trustee for Lan Associates Xi, L.P.

192 F.3d 109 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 5, 1999

Because “both a percentage-based calculation and a reasonableness analysis” must be conducted in establishing an appropriate award, id. (Bankr.Ct. … The fact that this intent was not clearly articulated in the prior version of § 330 does not preclude this interpretation.

Bill Gray Enterprises, Incorporated Employee Health And Welfare Plan v. Ronald L. Gourley

248 F.3d 206 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 2001

B. 54 ERISA health plans must provide participants with a plan document that clearly explains coverage. … and communicate procedures to determine whether a medical child support order is qualified under ERISA Sec. 609.

Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Company

534 F.2d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 2, 1976

The request for admissions establishes, as well, that she knew then there might be a relationship between the disease and her use of Oracon. … Thus the requirement appears to be merely a form and mode of enforcing the immunity . . . and not a rule intended to be bound up with the definition of the rights and obligations of the parties. 52 Id. 53 A year later, the