Case law

Muhammed v. City of Philadelphia

186 F. App'x 277 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 27, 2006

A165.2 In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Muhammed must establish that he is 1) disabled within the meaning of the Act, 2) otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … Although Muhammed can clearly establish the required adverse employment decision, he cannot establish that he is “disabled,” and he cannot, therefore, claim the protection of the Act.

United States v. Jasin

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 5, 2002

The district court denied the motion on the grounds that La Duca had not been diligent in requesting that the government provide Neiman use immunity for his testimony. … Pionzio did not testify at trial, but later, under a grant of immunity, he provided grand jury testimony that appeared to exculpate Lowell.

Kromnick v. School District Of Philadelphia

739 F.2d 894 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 1984

The district court's characterization of the School Board's concern about reversion to prior levels of segregation as "sheer speculation" is clearly erroneous. … the two central parties to the seniority plan, the School District and the Union, incorporated the 75%/125% policy in their collective bargaining contract, thereby agreeing that certain perquisites of seniority are to be qualified

Mckeesport Hospital v. The Accreditation Council For Graduate Medical Education

24 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 1994

The ACGME's relationship to the state is clearly distinguishable. … to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, something it clearly did not do

Anash Inc v. Borough of Kingston

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

First, as to the land-use-regulation requirement, the 2023 Zoning Ordinance likely qualifies as a ‘land use regulation’ under RLUIPA because it regulates zoning within Kingston. … Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 726 (concluding that a requirement to pay “an enormous sum of money” for action in accordance with religious belief “clearly imposes a substantial burden on those beliefs”).

Nos. 15940-15951

384 F.2d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 6, 1967

illegitimate purposes in abuse of the corporate fiction and the immunity that it carries * * *.' … But such 'privity' cannot, without more, satisfy the libellants' burden of establishing Charles, Sr.'s individual liability for negligence.

United States v. Nicholas Panarella, Jr.

277 F.3d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 2002

A public official who deliberately chooses to lie about an income source in violation of a criminal law clearly imposing a duty to disclose does so at his peril. … Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 140 (2d Cir.1982) (Winter, J., dissenting) (fearing that “[a] partisan political leader who throws decisive support behind a candidate known to the leader to be less qualified than his or her opponent

United States v. Joseph Dougherty

706 F. App'x 736 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2017

In Jones, the Supreme Court held that “an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property ‘used in’ commerce or commerce- affecting activity; arson of such a dwelling, therefore … established the nexus between the target properties and commercial activity at the sites.

Jeffrey Wiest v. Thomas Lynch

710 F.3d 121 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2013

Because I believe the District Court properly determined that the Wiests failed to establish that Mr. … I do not agree that requiring that an allegedly protected communication clearly relate to one of the laws enumerated in § 806 is an exercise in formalism.

Walton v. Mental Health Assn

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 1999

[plaintiff] has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination"); McConathy v. Dr. … To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, Walton "must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) [she] belongs to a protected class; (2) [she] was qualified for the position; (3) [she] was dismissed

Dole v. Local 427, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers

894 F.2d 607 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 18, 1990

C.A. §§ 414, 440 (1985) clearly permit the Secretary of Labor to bring an action on behalf of a private litigant seeking to obtain copies of certain contracts signed by his or her union. 3 Nevertheless, both the Supreme Court … In doing so, we do no more than follow the dictates of established Supreme Court precedent. C. In U.S. v.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Frank Fonseca Government of the Virgin Islands v. Blanche Finney Government of the Virgin Islands, No. 00-3628. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Frank Fonseca. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Blanche Finney, Blanche Finney, No. 00-3877. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Frank Fonseca. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Blanche Finney, Frank Fonseca, No. 00-3878

274 F.3d 760 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 12, 2001

Bornn was "an eminently qualified and well respected lawyer," Fonseca, 119 F.Supp. 2d at 535 , she had not previously handled a criminal case, let alone a homicide. … He initially requested such a charge, and thereafter clearly attempted to get clarification from the court on whether the lawful violence instruction was given during his absence. The court assured him that it had been.

In the Matter of the Lehigh and New England Railway Company, Debtor. United States of America, Erie Lackawanna, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors in D.C. Appeal of Central Jersey Industries, Inc

657 F.2d 570 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 1981

This is not a simple situation of one party receiving money clearly designated as payment for services performed by another. … They have never established, however, a claim to that property in the first place.

Story v. Kindt

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 27, 1994

The 1978 Act does not "clearly and manifestly" state tha was to be applied retroactively. Section 2 of the 1978 Act states that "[t]his act take effect immediately." … Pelullo, 14 F.3d 881, 887-97 (3d Cir. 1994) (coll estoppel cannot be applied against a criminal defendant to establish an element of crime). But see Adams v.

Spartus Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. The S/s Yafo, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem, and Zim Israel Navigation Company, Ltd., in Personam, Defendant-Third-Party Cross-Appellee v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, Third-Party

590 F.2d 1310 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 7, 1979

All recognized the need for international uniformity in ocean bills of lading, particularly the establishment of an irreducible minimum of immunity of the carrier. … On this record, we cannot say that the district judge was clearly erroneous in concluding that Zim did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the clock movements were delivered to the railroad in good condition

United States v. Hagaman

213 F.2d 86 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 13, 1954

The administrative authorities were justified in finding that Hagaman did not so qualify. It is true that he was baptized at the age of eighteen into the “ministry” of this sect. … The final appeal restored - the 1-A ■ classification which the local Board had given. .When trial courts pass upon a question pf fact, courts of appeals are to accept their conclusions unless clearly erroneous.-.

Lea Augustin v. City of Philadelphia

897 F.3d 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 18, 2018

. §§ 7183, 7432. 4  Third, the Lien Law establishes post-filing procedures for judicial sales. … This factual finding was clearly erroneous, however, because the witness whose testimony the District Court relied on said no such thing.

Columbia Metal Culvert Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.

579 F.2d 20 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 1978

For instance, stifling intra-brand competition may violate § 1, while “monopoly” over a given brand would clearly not run afoul of § 2. See Continental TV Inc. v. … The evidence submitted to the finders of fact in those situations clearly differed from the record in the case before us, which involves a wholly different set of litigants.

Kareem Millhouse v. B. Bledsoe

458 F. App'x 200 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 20, 2012

He believed that the witnesses (both staff members) would also establish that he did not threaten staff members. Milhouse’s DHO hearing began on June 23, 2009. … We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its findings of fact. Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002).

United States v. Marquise Bell

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 9, 2020

Relying on Anglin and Rosario, Bell argues that “more than a mere threat is required to establish physical restraint.” Appellant’s Br. 10. … We established a distinction between brandishing and otherwise using a weapon in United States v. Johnson, 199 F.3d 123, 127 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v.