Case law

Renel Sample v. OPM

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2026

Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 763 (3d Cir. 1994), by “clearly set[ting] forth” reasons for its decision that “would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause” of its decision to not select Sample for the … OPM explained that, due to the temporary nature of the detail and the expectation that the selected individual “be familiar with the branch’s staff, customers, and work projects,” the agency preferred an otherwise qualified

Ford v. Schering Plough Corp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 22, 1998

she made to qualify for the benefits she already received. … The locus of the ambiguity is whether the ADA contains a temporal qualifier of the term "qualified individual with a disability[.]"

Hagans v. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co.

318 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 1963

The testimony in question simply was not qualified as a business record. … The hazards to Hagans clearly weigh less than the prejudices which the complete deprivation may have caused Atlantic to suffer.

Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. Miramax Film Corp., Counterclaim-Plaintiffs v. Video Pipeline, Inc., Counterclaim-Defendant Video Pipeline, Inc.

342 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 2003

As Video Pipeline's display of excerpts taken from the copyrighted movies clearly comes within the prohibition on public display of motion pictures, and images from a motion picture, we turn to whether Video Pipeline's use … There is, however, a well-established patent misuse doctrine, see, e.g., Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 , 62 S.Ct. 402 , 86 L.Ed. 363 (1942); W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.

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.

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.

Mark Saltzman v. Independence Blue Cross

384 F. App'x 107 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 10, 2010

Appellants thus assert that the formulary is not the kind of document that qualifies as a plan document under ERISA. … Meister’s copayment requirement and copayment amounts are established in the Prescription Drug Rider.

Standard Oil Company (Indiana) v. Montedison

664 F.2d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 14, 1981

The requirement that a patent application must contain a full disclosure also serves to set forth clearly the scope and limits of the invention. … Fox was not sufficiently familiar with crystalline polypropylene in 1953 to be qualified to testify as to the state of that art.

Varela v. AE Liquidation, Inc.

866 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 2017

Eclipse did not receive any additional qualifying bids for the company, and, after a multiple-day sale hearing, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order on January 23, 2009, approving a second amended asset purchase agreement … Sufficiency of Notice of Termination 15  We turn first to Appellants’ contention that Eclipse cannot qualify for the unforeseeable business circumstances exception to excuse its

Helen Shaw v. Ohio River Company

526 F.2d 193 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 4, 1975

If the quoted holding was intended as a finding of fact, then it is clearly erroneous, for the only evidence is unequivocally to the contrary. … Clearly the premiums were payments made pursuant to a wage agreement. In contrast with the factual context of Thomas v.

Preston Grimes v. Superintendent Graterford SCI

619 F. App'x 146 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 2015

Thompson rule that “an attorney’s errors in a postconviction proceeding do not qualify as cause for a default.” Id. at 1315 (discussing Coleman v. … Flores-Ortega sets forth the analysis courts should employ when a defendant, who “has not clearly 1 Under this “narrow exception: Inadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish

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,’ ‘

United States v. Fisher

126 F. App'x 71 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 25, 2005

If all three elements are established, the court may, but need not, exercise its discretion to award relief. Id. … At no time did Fisher clearly and unequivocally request that he be permitted to represent himself at trial. See Buhl v.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Douglas, Leo, in No. 85-3488. Government of the Virgin Islands, in No. 85-3732 v. Douglas, Leo. In Re Government of the Virgin Islands, in No. 86-3544

812 F.2d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 1987

Defendant removed the case to the federal district court, which concluded after the jury returned a guilty verdict that the defendant had a valid immunity defense. … Whether the sentence under Sec. 559.225 is imposed consecutively or concurrently, it is clearly "over and above" that imposed for the basic felony.

No. 91-5200

952 F.2d 53 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 1992

Section 881(a)(7) states clearly that [a]ll real property ... which is used, or intended to be used ... [in any manner] to facilitate the commission of a [narcotics] violation" is subject to forfeiture. … Thus the connection between the property and the intended activity relating to illegal narcotics trafficking is firmly established.

United States v. Stamatios Kousisis

66 F.4th 406 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 21, 2023

It is now well established that the federal wire fraud provision only extends to property rights.11 Moreover, for the government to establish wire fraud, the property involved “must play more than some bit part in a scheme … PennDOT’s dollars establish the requisite property interest here, not the socially laudable objective of ensuring participation by a DBE.62 Moreover, there was clearly a kickback here and thus economic harm sufficient

Veterans and Reservists for Peace in Vietnam v. Regional Commissioner of Customs, Region II and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States

459 F.2d 676 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 4, 1972

The attack is essentially two-pronged: the statute and regulations establish an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power without adequate standards, and violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the receipt of unsolicited … Clearly, items entitled to First Amendment protection may be encompassed within the definition of the term “property.”

United States v. Terrence Gibbs A/K/A Terry A/K/A T Terrence Gibbs, in No. 97-1374 United States of America v. Antjuan Sydnor, in No. 97-1736 United States of America v. Earl Lamont Brown, in No. 97-1785

190 F.3d 188 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1999

Agent Coleman has been a narcotics investigator for eighteen years, and the District Court qualified him as an expert in the analysis and interpretation of drug conversations. … He also implicitly argues that the testimony of Agent Coleman, who was qualified as an expert, violated the dictates of Rule 702 when he defined words that did not require specialized knowledge to understand, since that testimony

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.

United States v. Trance Kale

445 F. App'x 482 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2011

Kale‟s trial counsel argued that Conquest, Young, and Heath lied under oath to comply with their plea agreements and that Buonanno lied to obtain immunity from prosecution. … The Court then went on to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence and on the “minimal” effect on interstate commerce required to establish a jurisdictional nexus for a Hobbs Act violation.