Case law

Hitham Abuhouran v. United States

389 F. App'x 179 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 20, 2010

He also argued that the affidavit offered by the Government regarding the ventilation system at FDC-Philadelphia was insufficient as the person who prepared it was not a qualified environmental engineer or mechanical architect … question we asked the parties to brief on appeal: “whether the discretionary function exception shields the government from liability with respect to Abuhouran’s claim of ETS exposure, or whether the government has waived immunity

Frisby v. United States Department Of Housing And Urban Development

755 F.2d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 1985

Two disposition alternatives were considered: (1) demolition of abandoned/vandalized units and cash sale of the remainder without rehabilitation, but with Section 8 Certificates to qualified residents pursuant to 24 C.F.R … Majority opinion at 1059, 1060; Appendix at 412-13 (letter opinion of the district court). 100 As an initial matter, I believe that the first and second justifications are clearly inadequate to support HUD's decision.

Shirley Fichter v. AMG Resources Corporation

528 F. App'x 225 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 12, 2013

AMG‘s core reasons for Fichter‘s reassignment are that the position was important and she was most qualified for it. … ―The court need not discuss every argument made by a litigant if an argument is clearly without merit.‖ United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 329 (3d Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Kimbrough v.

Regan v. Loewenstein

292 F. App'x 200 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 11, 2008

When a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish “jurisdictional facts through sworn affidavits or other competent evidence.” Patterson by Patterson v. … Also, they fail to show how any aspect of Regan’s fan tribute book qualifies as a “trade secret.”

United States v. Knox

40 F. App'x 719 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

We cannot say the District Court clearly erred in accepting the 15 to 50 kilogram figure. … Ann. 2C:18-2 (West 2002), is broad enough to criminalize both the entering of a dwelling and the entering of a commercial establishment.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Felix

569 F.2d 1274 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 27, 1978

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court declared that “. . . this hearing clearly established to my mind that the defendant is competent to *494 stand trial . . .” 2 Meanwhile, on February 25, 1977, the prosecution sought … None of these points involves definite medical or psychiatric testimony from one who is professionally qualified to pass judgment on the matter in question, and who personally examined the defendant.

Nerys Garay v. Attorney General United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 2021

The BIA concluded the IJ did not clearly err in concluding otherwise. We see nothing in the record that contradicts the agency’s findings. … “For a protected characteristic to qualify as ‘one central reason’, it must be an essential or principal reason for the persecution . . . .” Id. at 685.

National Industrial Sand Ass'n v. Marshall

601 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 16, 1979

and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Congress was clearly concerned with the permissive scope of the Secretary’s authority, not with the mandatory imposition of statutory duties on independent contractors.

Educational Testing Services v. Katzman

793 F.2d 533 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 20, 1986

Using the procedure established by this regulation, representatives of the Copyright Office examined ETS’ tests and then returned them. ETS deposited only the front and back covers of its tests. … Even if Katzman is president and sole shareholder of Review, this alone may not establish that the incorporated Review is liable on Katzman’s contract.

Raymond Holloway, Jr. v. Attorney General United States

948 F.3d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 17, 2020

Seven judges stated that any crime which qualifies for § 922(g)(1) is serious. Id. at 388 (Fuentes, J.). … Our precedent does require us to follow the doctrinal structure established in Barton and adopted in Binderup.

Gabriel Jennings v. Francisco J. Quintana

563 F. App'x 882 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 2014

Jennings acknowledges that the sale of illegal drugs from a home can qualify it as being used in an activity that affects interstate commerce. See United States v. … We conclude that the evidence, including testimony from two of Jennings’ co-conspirators, clearly establishes that Jennings was involved in drug sales from Gore’s basement in latter half of 1988.

Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division v. National Labor Relations Board

347 F.2d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 1965

In Truitt, the employer’s claim that it was financially unsound and could not grant a wage increase because of its financial status, together with its inability to defend its refusal, established the relevance of the union … The 11 factors are ‘scholastic requirements,’ ‘previously related experience,’ ‘qualifying period,’ ‘scope of duties,’ ‘initiative exercised,’ ‘frequence of verification,’ ‘contacts required,’ ‘degree of concentration,’ ‘

In Re: Linerboard Antitrust Litigation Winoff Industries, Inc. v. Stone Container Corporation Jefferson Smurfit Corp. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. International Paper Co. Georgia Pacific Corp. Weyerhaeuser Paper Co. Temple-Inland Inc. Gaylord Container Corp. Union Camp Corp. Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co. Tenneco, Inc. Tenneco Packaging Packaging Corporation of America General Refractories Company, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Stone Container Corporation Stone Container Corporation, Jefferson Smurfit Corp., Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., International Paper Co., Georgia Pacific Corp., Weyerhaeuser Paper Co., Temple-Inland, Inc., Gaylord Container Corp., Union Camp Corp., Tenneco, Inc., Tenneco Packaging and Packaging Corporation of America, ( Amended Per Clerk's Order Dated 2/5/02)

305 F.3d 145 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

Clearly, if proof of the essential elements of the cause of action require individual treatment, then there cannot be a predominance of "questions of law and fact common to the members of the class." 55 Equally important, … inaction in the face of such awareness qualifies as "due diligence"; (3) that Garrett Paper's asserted small size excuses its inaction; (4) that none of the other named Appellees knew or had reason to know about the alleged

United States v. Michael J. Grasso, Jr.

381 F.3d 160 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2004

In the context of our review standard, he has failed to establish error of any sort, let alone plain error. B. … Grasso's suggestion that a preliminary determination must be made whether each individual qualifies for restitution is plainly incorrect.

United States v. Richard O. Bertoli Podvey, Sachs, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner & Cocoziello, Court-Appointed Standby Counsel for Richard O. Bertoli

994 F.2d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 7, 1993

He does not qualify for indigent status. … We also think the district court has clearly gone too far in at least one other respect.

United States v. Arthur Maurello

76 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 22, 1996

Defendant used this information to obtain driver's licenses, credit cards and social security cards under the assumed names. 10 In 1989, defendant briefly established a law practice entitled "Bell and Burdette." … A qualified and licensed attorney may have done a better job for less money, or it may be that Maurello's services were actually inadequate, unknown to his "client."

David Houghton v. Natl Security Agcy

378 F. App'x 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 5, 2010

If an adequate factual basis exists, we then decide whether the District Court's determination was clearly erroneous. See id. (citations omitted). … It is well-established that Section 6 “is a statute qualifying under Exemption 3.” See The Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v.

Marsha Bliss-Miller v. Laborers International Union o

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 17, 2022

Bliss-Miller claimed that two similarly qualified male travelers, William Hardy and Andrew Hillard, were referred work from Local 158 through Slick during the same time that Slick told Bliss-Miller no work was available … On appeal, Bliss-Miller argues that evidence at trial “clearly established” that similarly qualified male travelers received work from Slick while Slick told Bliss-Miller 1 The parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate

Kim Millbrook v. United States

714 F. App'x 109 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 27, 2017

While Bledsoe was clearly employed in a supervisory capacity at USP-Lewisburg, Millbrook has not alleged that Bledsoe directed or condoned any violations of Millbrook’s constitutional rights. … In order to establish a claim of negligence, Pennsylvania law requires the following four elements to be satisfied: “(1) a duty of care; (2) the breach of the duty; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting

United States of America, in No. 81-1020 v. Jannotti, Harry P. United States of America, in No. 81-1021 v. Schwartz, George X

673 F.2d 578 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 11, 1982

The district court’s statement, without citation to the record, that the evidence “clearly” establishes that the defendants “made it very clear that the payments would not be necessary,” 501 F.Supp. at 1185 , does not fairly … The freedom of a country may be measured by its immunity from this baleful agency.