Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,730 results
1.91s
855 F.2d 114 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 1988
The court held that although Krop qualified as an expert in eyewitness identification, the testimony would not be admitted. The court gave two reasons for its ruling. … The photograph was not a "mug-shot" that was clearly identifiable as the product of an arrest, and its introduction was not reversible error. re United States v.
Cited 47 timesPublishedFrederick Nahas v. Shore Medical Center
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 18, 2020
P. 56(a). 2 The Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) does not immunize officials from civil rights claims, 42 U.S.C. § 11111(a)(1)(D), or actions seeking injunctive relief, Gordon v. … As evidence that Shore Medical’s proffered reasons satisfy these conditions, Nahas asserts that the application criteria were applied unequally and that he was “objectively more qualified” than the candidate conditionally
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedThelosen v. Commissioner of Social Security
384 F. App'x 86 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 17, 2010
To qualify for DAC, TheLosen was required to establish that she was disabled prior to her twenty-second birthday – October 13, 1995. … To qualify for DIB, TheLosen was required to establish she became disabled during her last employment or the statutory 2 period – in her case, on or before March 31, 2001
Cited 3 timesUnpublishedIn Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
618 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 16, 2010
Twombly, we think, clearly demands more scrutiny of a § 1 complaint. … While the proof used to establish these separate elements may in particular cases coalesce, proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.
Cited 882 timesPublishedMinikan Johnson v. Attorney General United States
596 F. App'x 117 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 17, 2014
The statutory and regulatory language clearly places the burden of proof on the noncitizen. The Supreme Court appears to endorse this two-step approach. … had established his eligibility for discretionary relief.
Cited 1 timesUnpublished633 F.2d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 11, 1980
Such a presumption, which is implicit in the Pennsylvania policy, clearly violates the principle that only "actually available income" be used in determining eligibility for AFDC benefits. … Jackson's two member household would have qualified for a monthly benefit of $247 ($164 for the father and $83 for Tarik).
Cited 0 timesPublishedGage v. Warren Township Committee & Planning Board Members
463 F. App'x 68 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 2, 2012
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, we may summarily dispose of an appeal when it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented by the appeal. … All matters 1 The defendant judges are, of course, absolutely immunized from a civil rights suit for money damages arising from their judicial acts. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v.
Cited 14 timesUnpublishedElsinore Shore Associates v. Local 54, Hotel Employees And Restaurant Employees International Union
820 F.2d 62 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 25, 1987
The court held that Elsinore qualified for the anti-strike injunction under Boys Markets, Inc. v. … Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 , 90 S.Ct. 1583 , 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970), which authorizes a court to enjoin a strike if the employer establishes that: 1) the contract contains an implicit or explicit no-strike
Cited 0 timesPublishedSteven D'Agostino v. Secretary United States Air Force
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 2024
Not unrelated: There were multiple instances in which the amount of 1 Insofar as we relate these findings, we have determined that they are not clearly erroneous. Cf. VICI Racing, LLC v. … Ann. § 34:11-56a et seq.,—as it had been for a good chunk of the litigation—and dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedTaberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
954 F.2d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 1992
There the defendants were convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to testify before the grand jury after having been granted immunity. … Such a limitation would be inconsistent with the well-established principle that the contempt power is inherent in the courts.
Cited 22 timesPublishedUnited States v. Stamatios Kousisis
82 F.4th 230 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2023
It is now well established that the federal wire fraud provision only extends to property rights. 12 Moreover, for the government to establish wire fraud, the property involved “must play more than some bit part in a scheme … Rather, they schemed to have PennDOT pay them millions of dollars that they were clearly not entitled to given their material breach of the contracts.
Cited 7 timesPublishedLuden's Inc. v. Local Union No. 6
28 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 20, 1994
provision so well established between the parties. … Once an implied term is established, a unilateral change regarding the term is unlawful." (citation omitted)); Franklin Elec. Co. v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 2024
Given the absence of evidence of such knowledge, the District Court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and its rejection of Brown’s failure to protect claim was proper. … Brown also challenges the District Court’s determination that her state law claims were barred by sovereign immunity. (Doc. 33, at 24-26 of 101.)
Cited 0 timesUnpublished460 F.2d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 1972
Willie Eason Dyal that he heard the statement is now tendered, this would not seem to establish its communication to Union Camp’s representatives, and it did not qualify Mrs. … While the evidence with respect to Dyal’s actual authority is contradictory, we are not left with the firm conviction that the trial court’s finding was clearly erroneous. F.R.C.P.
Cited 8 timesPublishedMaria H. Pinto v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
214 F.3d 377 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 2000
Our rule is also informed by the understanding that “smoking gun” direct evidence of purposeful bias is rare in these cases so that, without more searching review, benefits decisions will be virtually immunized. … Some courts, led by the Eleventh Circuit, have established a standard approaching de novo review, shifting the burden to the defendant company to explain its decisions.
Overruled on other grounds by Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008)Cited 236 timesPublished835 F.2d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 28, 1988
Section 411(d)(3) partial termination addresses the question of when and how certain unvested benefits in a qualified pension plan will be deemed to have vested, due to changes in the plan. … Secretary of the Navy, 639 F.2d 1029, 1035 (3d Cir.1981) (discussing this courts establish “practice that precludes consideration of issues raised for the first time on appeal”). Caisson Corp. v.
Cited 52 timesPublished334 F.2d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 1964
This argument is without merit and the cases cited in support of it are clearly inapposite. … We have examined Superior's written offer of proof in the light of the evidence introduced by El Paso and find that the proffered evidence did not qualify as rebuttal.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States v. David Shulick
994 F.3d 123 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 13, 2021
As the District Court correctly concluded, a conclusory claim of this sort falls short of what is required of a defendant to successfully establish prejudice. … Under this version of the statute, Shulick would have a better argument that the condition qualifies all words before it, as a unitary whole.
Cited 4 timesPublished239 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 22, 2001
S 1961; that section, therefore, does not establish the applicable interest rate. … In sum, we find that construction of the ter m "district court" in related statutes, concerns bearing on sovereign immunity, and the applicability of 48 U.S.C.
Cited 1 timesUnknownFree Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 1, 2020
“For a legal dispute to qualify as a genuine case or controversy,” a plaintiff “must have standing to sue,” id., and an association may have such standing “as a representative of its members,” Pa. Psychiatric Soc’y v. … To succeed on their overbreadth claim, the plaintiffs must carry the burden of establishing that invalid applications of the Statutes make them substantially overbroad.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna