Case law

Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board Beverly R. Minor, Individually and as Members of the Board Luke F. Brubaker J. Robert Derry, Individually and as Members of the Board, Thomas E. McGlinchey Gertrude Giorgini Sue A. Spigler, ("Milk Consumers"), Intervenors-Plaintiffs, Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc., (Amended Per Clerk's Order Filed 10/3/01) Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board Beverly R. Minor, Individually and as Chairperson of the Board Luke F. Brubaker J. Robert Derry, Individually and as Members of the Board, Thomas E. McGlinchey Gertrude Giorgini Sue A. Spigler, ("Milk Consumers"), Intervenors-Plaintiffs, Thomas E. McGlinchey Gertrude Giorgini Sue A. Spigler, Individually, and on Behalf of Milk Consumers in Pmmb Areas 1 and 4, (Amended Per Clerk's Order Filed 10/3/01)

298 F.3d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2002

The record also supports a finding that the minimum wholesale prices' burdens on interstate commerce clearly outweigh their local benefits. … Bd., 877 F.Supp. 245 , 252-53 (E.D.Pa.1995) (holding that the plaintiffs could establish a dormant Commerce Clause violation by showing that the Board sets minimum prices according to in-state dealers' costs); cf.

In Re Bildisco

682 F.2d 72 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 17, 1982

III. 17 In enacting § 365, Congress provided no indication that collective bargaining agreements were to be immune from rejection and thus unique among executory contracts. … 523 F.2d 164 , 169 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1017 , 96 S.Ct. 451 , 46 L.Ed.2d 388 ; 423 U.S. 1073 , 96 S.Ct. 855 , 47 L.Ed.2d 82 (1975). 11 According to REA Express, rejection should be permitted "only where it clearly

United States v. Wright

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 6, 2004

. § 2314 either knew or should have reasonably foreseen that the Turning to the question whether property would be transported in interstate the evidence was sufficient to establish commerce. … Nor have we found “accused” appears clearly to have been cases interpreting the term “accused” as used in the conventional sense to denote a used in that provision as referring to criminal defendant.

United States v. Paul Bergrin

682 F.3d 261 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 2012

Although the Court’s colloquy did include some qualifying language, the first thing it said was that it would “[a]bsolutely” exclude that evidence from Bergrin’s retrial. (Joint App. at 49.) … Unlike the District Court’s ruling with respect to the Pozo Plot, however, the District Court’s decision to exclude evidence of the Esteves Plot was not clearly rooted in a flawed premise.

United States v. Brandon Segers

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 28, 2024

The district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. … But injuries like those suffered here have been found by courts to qualify as a “life-threatening bodily injury.” See, e.g., United States v.

Marcavage v. Bd Trustees Temple

232 F. App'x 79 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 2007

“To show an abuse of discretion, appellants must show the district court’s action was arbitrary, fanciful or clearly unreasonable. … Immunity from civil and criminal liability attaches unless the individual acts with “willful misconduct or gross negligence.” 50 PA. CONS. STAT.

Lynch v. Rank

747 F.2d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 1984

We find no clearly expressed intention in the legislative history that would lead us to depart from the language which Congress chose in drafting the amendment. … That is, persons having less income than some Pickle amendment beneficiaries are not eligible for categorical Medicaid because, for example, they were not previously recipients of SSI and therefore do not qualify for the

Liddle v. Comm IRS

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 1995

The regulations promulgated under § 167 provided that in order to qualify for the depreciation deduction, the taxpayer had to establish that the property in question had a determinable useful life. Treas. … Cases that addressed the availability for depreciation deductions under § 167 clearly establish that works of art and/or collectibles were not depreciable because they lacked a determinable useful life.

Dinnall v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 1, 2005

Employing a Landgraf analysis, Dinnall first maintains that Congress clearly did not intend § 241(a)(5) to apply to these events occurring before the effective date of § 241(a)(5). … for the First Circuit held that “application of § 241(a)(5) to deprive an alien who illegally reentered the country before IIRIRA’s effective date of the ability to apply for relief for which the alien did not theretofore qualify

Fendrick v. PPL Services Corp.

193 F. App'x 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

Fendrick argues, and we agree, that an ADA plaintiff need not establish that he was qualified to perform his job in order to recover on a retaliation claim. See Krouse v. … We are not, therefore, prepared to say that the erroneous formulation was so clearly prejudicial to Fendrick as to amount to plain error.

United States v. Kenneth Douglas

885 F.3d 124 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 15, 2018

The record does not establish that Douglas’s job required him to exercise any judgment, much less judgment that others accepted. … Furthermore, while a defendant who is a fiduciary or who holds fiduciary-like status may qualify for the enhancement, fiduciary status is not required.

Myers v. American Dental Association

695 F.2d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 10, 1983

Thus, Myers has clearly failed to carry his burden. … ACA never qualified to do business in Virginia (only in Delaware) and its sole office was in Iowa.

Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc.

988 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 1993

Factual conclusions as to minimum contacts are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Stranahan Gear Co. v. N.L. Indus., Inc., 800 F.2d 53, 56 (3d Cir.1986). … The building receptionist does not qualify.

389 Orange Street Partners, a Connecticut Partnership, Cross-Claimant and Clifford Robinson, Defendant-X-Claim Third-Party v. Richard L. Arnold Kyle Arnold Regis Conlon, Third-Party Cross-Claimants and Trail Blazers Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross v. Sebastian S. Ciarcia, and Law Office of Sebastian Ciarcia, a Connecticut Corporation, Third-Party Clifford Robinson, Cross-Claimant Third-Party v. Sebastian S. Ciarcia, and Law Office of Sebastian Ciarcia, a Connecticut Corporation, Richard L. Arnold Kyle Arnold Regis Conlon, Third-Party Cross-Claimants Trail Blazers Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross and 389 Orange Street Partners, Defendant-Cross Trail Blazers Inc., an Oregon Corporation v. 389 Orange Street Partners, a Connecticut Partnership, Defendant-Cross and Clifford Robinson, Cross-Claimant Third-Party v. Sebastian S. Ciarcia, and Law Office of Sebastian Ciarcia, a Connecticut Corporation, Richard L. Arnold Kyle Arnold Regis Conlon, Third-Party

170 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 22, 1999

Both Connecticut's negligence and general tort statutes of limitation had run unless Robinson can establish an exception. … The legal memorandum in opposition says nothing about the cross-claims qualifying as affirmative defenses.

Ould Bah Nagi v. Atty Gen USA

253 F. App'x 164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 5, 2007

Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 561 n.4 (3d Cir. 2004) (“an applicant who does not qualify for asylum also does not qualify for withholding of removal”). … Since Nagi’s BIA appeal was focused on the IJ’s factual findings, findings which were not clearly erroneous, the one-member BIA affirmance was procedurally proper.

Lightning Lube, Inc. Laser Lube, a New Jersey Corporation v. Witco Corporation Avis Service, Inc. Avis Lube, Inc. Avis Enterprises, Inc., Defendants/third Party v. Ralph Venuto, Individually and D/B/A Laser Lube, Lightning Lube, and Automotive Management Systems Carol Venuto, His Wife, Individually Automotive Management Systems, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Third Party Witco Corporation, Lightning Lube, Inc. Laser Lube, a New Jersey Corporation v. Witco Corporation Avis Service, Inc. Avis Lube, Inc. Avis Enterprises, Inc., Defendants/third Party v. Ralph Venuto, Individually and D/B/A Laser Lube, Lightning Lube, and Automotive Management Systems Carol Venuto, His Wife, Individually Automotive Management Systems, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Third Party Lightning Lube, Inc., T/a Laser Lube

4 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 10, 1993

Corwin clearly intended to interfere with Lightning Lube's business relations with Vangarelli, Craig, and Fischer. … Venuto thus was not required to qualify as an expert to offer opinion testimony concerning Lightning Lube's lost profits. Id.

United States v. Nahsiem McIntosh

124 F.4th 199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 2024

. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) by establishing a relatively high threshold below which the enhancement does not apply. … But that does not render us incapable of determining what qualifies for the enhancement.

Union Casualty & Surety Co. v. Gray

114 F. 422 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 20, 1902

So far, and in this qualified sense as to third parties holding policies of the company, it may be said to have been privy to the contract between Black and Gray. … Here is a clearly defined purpose for the appointment in question. No other and independent purpose can be attached thereto.

United States Ex Rel. Judd v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.

638 F. App'x 162 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 2015

Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 945-46 (1997), “there is a presumption against retroactive legislation that is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence” that is applied “unless Congress had clearly manifested its intent to the contrary … The parties do not dispute that the pleadings in Urbanek and Hunter Labs qualify as public disclosures under the public disclosure bar in both its pre- ACA and ACA-amended forms.

Hozier v. Midwest Fasteners, Inc.

908 F.2d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 1990

In other words, although ERISA was clearly “designed to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans,” Shaw v. … determine the exact range of permissible remedies under § 502(a)(1)(A), which varies according to how one balances the obvious tension in § 502(c) between the express $100 per day limitation and the immediately following qualifier