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.

United States v. Jimenez-Calderon

183 F. App'x 274 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2006

“The Sentencing Commission's awareness of potential double counting issues is clearly reflected in other Guidelines provisions.” United States v. … In Ortiz, the defendant was subordinate to another individual but qualified as a leader because he acted as a principal in an illicit transaction, recruited two members of the conspiracy and directed the actions of some

Hudson United Bank v. Chase Manhattan Bank of Connecticut, N.A.

43 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 29, 1994

The purpose was not to immunize certain claims from review. … Claims that are filed late where the claimant had timely notice of the appointment of the receiver but the claim did not arise before the end of the cut- off date would not qualify as exceptions under § 1821(d)(5)(C)(ii).

Federal Labor Relations Authority v. U.S. Department of the Navy

966 F.2d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 26, 1992

Congress established the OPM, formerly the Civil Service Commission, to “provide leadership in personnel matters throughout the Federal service,” 12 Fed.Reg. 1259. … Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Court stated: It is well established “that an agency’s construction of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference.”

Government of the Virgin Islands v. D.W., a Minor

3 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 1993

Furthermore, the government's argument that the fine qualifies as a "sanction designed to demonstrate that delinquent behavior will not be tolerated" could be said of any sanction, whether or not authorized by statute. … Sec. 504. 34 Indeed, even under Secs. 2501 and 2524 the Family Division judge could have lawfully required D.W. to be placed in a "facility established for the instruction or residence of persons on probation" until his nineteenth

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

Barna v. City of Perth Amboy

42 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 1994

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State ..., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … In short, we believe the unauthorized use of a police-issue nightstick is simply not enough to color this clearly personal family dispute with the imprimatur of state authority. 11 35 To hold otherwise would create a federal

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.

Century Indemnity Co. v. Congoleum Corp.

426 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 13, 2005

Claims of the qualified participating claimants would be secured to 75% of the matrix values and the remainder would be treated as unsecured claims. … Gilbert explained that it did not represent the individual claimants with respect to the establishment of their tort claims, “but only with respect to the collection of insurance monies to pay claims that may be established

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.

Valansi v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 2002

A conviction establishing that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud his or her employer qualifies as an offense that involves fraud or deceit, and therefore as an aggravated felony. … But never do they demonstrate clearly that Valansi's specific intent was to defraud the bank.

Crossroads v. Orange & Rockland

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 27, 1998

In order to qualify as a QF, a cogeneration facility must meet requirements established by FERC. See 18 C.F.R. S 292.101 et seq. 3 requirements. … for establishing the parameters governing power purchase agreements between utilities and qualifying 14 facilities. 44 F.3d at 1191.

United States v. Kevin Bishop, United States of America v. Edward Stokes

66 F.3d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 1995

While the legal framework of the majority’s argument is similar to Perez , this case is clearly distinguishable. … I acknowledge the binding nature of this decision, but it is clearly distinguishable.

Great American Insurance v. Norwin School District

544 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 2008

By issuing final Certificates of Payment without such consent, Foreman clearly breached the terms of the contract documents. … The record, moreover, contains no evidence to establish that Norwin was, in fact, damaged by Foreman’s breach.

Nedal Elfar v. Township of Holmdel

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 3, 2025

But deprivations of liberty suffered during retrial, after a defendant’s conviction has been vacated, also qualify as seizures under the Fourth Amendment. … 617 A.2d 238, 244 (N.J. 1992) (“[T]he State is the municipal prosecutor’s client . . . .”), and New Jersey had divergent interests from Holmdel as a potential § 1983 claim posed no danger to New Jersey given its state immunity

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.

Khadidja Issa v. Lancaster School District

847 F.3d 121 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 30, 2017

An abuse of discretion occurs only if the decision reviewed rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact. Mancini v. … It is well established that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees immigrant children, whatever their legal status, equal access to public education. Plyler v.

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.

Farina v. Nokia, Inc.

625 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 22, 2010

Farina’s initial complaint was filed on April 19, 2001, clearly before CAFA’s enactment. … Protecting public safety is clearly within the mandate of the FCC. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(a)(1); H.R. Rep.

Hilton Mincy v. DeParlos

497 F. App'x 234 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 21, 2012

The record clearly documents both the contentious nature of the discovery period and the District Court’s generous efforts to accommodate both sides in this matter, liberally granting requests for extensions when possible … Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities