Case law

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

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

Chris Washington v. David DiGuglielmo

419 F. App'x 275 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 22, 2011

Defendants then filed a second motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity, which they had not previously argued, and Washington-El opposed it. Neither side supplemented the record. … In doing so, the District Court held only that Washington-El had not adduced sufficient evidence of an underlying constitutional violation, and it did not reach the issue of whether his asserted rights were “clearly established

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.

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.

Lawrence R. Alberti v. The Sheriff of Harris County, Texas, Defendants-Third Party in Re Ann Richards, the Governor of Texas, Third Party

937 F.2d 984 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 1991

The county clearly has some responsibility for the conditions in its own jails. … Conversely, the State will be relieved of duties clearly placed on it by statute. 5.

P.N., an Infant, Individually and by His Parent and Legal Guardian M.W. v. Clementon Board of Education

442 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 5, 2006

An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court’s decision “rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.” Hanover Potato Products, Inc. v. … To suggest, as CBE does, that plaintiffs must establish a new right or expand the requirements of the IDEA in order to obtain attorneys’ fees is to ignore the Supreme Court’s “generous formulation” of the term “prevailing

Oil Shipping (Bunkering) B.V. v. Sonmez Denizcilik Ve Ticaret A.S.

10 F.3d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 8, 1993

The court of appeals concluded that Congress, in enacting the Ship Mortgage Act, had clearly intended to establish the priorities among foreign ship mortgages and other maritime liens litigated in United States courts. … The district court concluded that Royal Bank's Mortgage qualified as a preferred mortgage.

United States of America Ex Rel. Edwin Gockley v. David N. Myers, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania

450 F.2d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 24, 1972

And the statement of the 19th was clearly the product of that search, not the arrest. … I do not suggest that the vast majority of prisoners who would be unable to qualify for relief under the tests set forth herein should be without remedy.

James Baker v. James F. Barbo Attorney General of the State of New Jersey

177 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 13, 1999

Rejecting his contention that this resentencing constituted a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Court stated: This Court has rejected the “doctrine that a prisoner, whose guilt is established, by a regular verdict … The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner.

In Re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation

431 F.3d 141 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 30, 2005

The settlement provided funding for screening tests to determine whether class members had qualifying heart disease and for compensation for the cost of the drugs and medical treatment, depending on the ultimate diagnosis … This challenge is clearly inappropriate as it is not a component of a due process challenge, appropriate for collateral attack.

Dixon Ticonderoga Company, in No. 99-6054 v. Estate of William F. O'COnnOr Schumann Hession Kennelly & Dorment Schumann Hanlon & Panepinto Harold Friedman Kirsten, Simon, Friedman, Allen, Cherin & Lutkin Greenberg Margolis Franzblau Dratch & Friedman Stryker Tams & Dill Schumann Hanlon O'COnnOr & McCrossin Harold Friedman Stryker Tams & Dill, Third-Party v. Decotiis, Fitzpatrick & Gluck Connolly Epstein Chicco Foxman Engelmyer & Ewing Steven J. Engelmyer Lisa E. Brody, Third-Party Harold Friedman, in No. 99-6055 Franzblau Dratch, F/k/a Greenberg Margolis, in No. 99-6056

248 F.3d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 23, 2001

Judge Bassler wrote that Dixon "clearly had knowledge of a claim for damages [against O'Connor] in either 1985 or at the latest, 1986." … Disagreeing, Dixon infers from the court's holding that it relied on the "judgmental immunity defense" recognized in Procanik v. Cillo, 226 N.J. Super. 132 , 543 A.2d 985 (N.J. App. Div. 1988).

Salomon Forex, Incorporated v. Laszlo N. Tauber, M.D., and Third Party and Laszlo N. Tauber, M.D. And Associates v. Salomon Brothers, Incorporated Salomon, Incorporated Fred Gatling, Third Party and Paul Mozer, Third Party the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago Chicago Mercantile Exchange United States of America Futures Industry Association, Incorporated Managed Futures Association Foreign Exchange Committee Commodity Futures Trading Commission State of Idaho, Department of Finance Nevada Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of State, Amici Curiae

8 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1993

. §§ 1-25 . 9 Today the CEA establishes a comprehensive system for regulating futures contracts and options. … which was already excluded before it was enacted. 36 In order to maintain that the clause "transactions in foreign currency" applies only to spots and cash forwards, as Tauber argues, we would also need to read in some qualifying

Serbin v. Ziebart International Corp.

11 F.3d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 30, 1993

The weekend was a fiasco — there weren’t enough skis, only one member of the staff was a qualified ski instructor, buses broke down and were unsafe, etc. … In making that determination, Congress establishes priorities about the proper utilization of the energies of an institution of limited size and resources — the federal judicial system. 27 The judgments below are affirmed

Biskupski v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 25, 2007

At an immigration hearing in Newark, New Jersey on December 19, 1996,3 the IJ found that the government had established Biskupski’s prior conviction by clear and convincing evidence. … Just as clearly, section 321(c) limits the applicability of the new definitions of aggravated felony to “actions taken” on or after September 30, 1996.

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.

Hechinger Investment Co. of Delaware, Inc. v. Universal Forest Products, Inc.

489 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 7, 2007

Starting with subsection B of the defense, UFP argued that all payments made by Hechinger within the new credit terms (i.e., within eight days of the invoice date) presumptively qualified as payments made in the “ordinary … The Bankruptcy Court did not clearly err in finding that the new credit arrangements between the parties were “extreme” and “out of character with the long historical relationship between these parties.”

Tabron v. Grace

6 F.3d 147 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 5, 1993

the standards district courts should apply in exercising their discretion under § 1915(d), stating only: Because of the diverse nature of the cases in which motions to appoint counsel are made, we deem it inadvisable to establish … We explained: Congress has authorized the courts to waive the prepayment of such items as filing fees and transcripts if a party qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 .

United States v. Richard O. Bertoli

40 F.3d 1384 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

That practice is clearly permissible under the guidelines. … The guideline provides a “fine table” which establishes a minimum and maximum fine based on the defendant’s offense level.

United States v. Continental Group, Inc.

603 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 20, 1979

Clearly, it is not sufficient for the government to prove that the defendants agreed to do something; agreement itself is not illegal. … These include (A) appellants’ joint contention that the district court erred in refusing to direct the government to immunize William S. Doolan, United States v.