Case law

United States v. Lamont Hunter

547 F. App'x 162 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 12, 2013

These undisputed facts establish that Hunter “exercised control over at least one other person.” United States v. Katora, 981 F.2d 1398, 1402 (3d Cir. 1992). … The District Court’s finding that Hunter was a supervisor within the meaning of § 3B1.1 was not clearly erroneous. IV.

Lyles v. Phila Gas Works

151 F. App'x 169 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 13, 2005

We agree with the District Court that Lyles established a prima facie case under the ADEA, because she demonstrated that: 1) she is a member of the protected class, i.e., at least 40 years of age; 2) she is qualified for … Clearly, Lyles believes that the suspension decision was unsubstantiated and unfair. However, even if we accept this perception as true for discussion purposes, it is insufficient to demonstrate pretext.

Doe v. Beal

523 F.2d 611 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 21, 1975

The instant case might be such a case, for example, if the Pennsylvania legislature had established a minimum doctor's charge, or even more clearly, a state license fee for an elective abortion. … If the plaintiffs' physicians do not approve their desired abortions, such abortions will not qualify under Title XIX.

United States v. Hoffecker

530 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 16, 2008

Here, the District Court clearly left to the jury the determination of whether the Government established beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of conspiracy and mail fraud. … Clearly, Hoffecker was keeping quiet about the injunction.

Gaul v. Lucent Tech Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 22, 1998

he is `an otherwise qualified' individual." … Gaul must also demonstrate as part of his facial showing that the costs associated with his proposed accommodation "are not clearly disproportionate to the benefits that it will produce." Borkowski v. Valley Cent.

Friedrich v. Computer Services

974 F.2d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 9, 1992

interstate commerce is a distinct and definite reason for the trip by these service managers and that in those cases where, as a regular practice, a service manager transports this equipment across State lines they would qualify … the DOT that authority and the DOT has not specifically determined otherwise, courts must follow the statute unless Congress acts to limit the DOT's power over commercial carriers by personal automobile or the DOT more clearly

Gustavo Diaz v. FCA US LLC

134 F.4th 715 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 15, 2025

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675 (identifying “the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim of unconstitutional discrimination against officials entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity” (emphasis added)); Twombly … See Connelly, 809 F.3d at 787 (“Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must . . . [f]irst . . .

United States v. Tysheen Gott

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 11, 2024

Here, Gott requested notice not for the existence of the opinion, but to establish the truth of the facts in it. … On this record, we cannot say the District Court clearly erred in arriving at its drug calculation. D.

Arlington Ghee v. Marten Transport, LTD

570 F. App'x 228 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 25, 2014

He also readily admitted that he was not qualified to testify as a vocational expert and had not, in preparing his expert report, reviewed any vocational expert’s materials or evaluation of Ghee. … “‘An abuse of discretion arises when the 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.’”

United States v. Messerlian, Harry H., in 85-5323. United States of America v. Wolkowski, Henry F., in 86-5345

832 F.2d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 4, 1987

Perlstein clearly controls the instant appeal. None of the arguments advanced by appellants convinces us of the contrary. … Aronson’s testimony are not clearly erroneous.

Valley Engineers Inc. Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Electric Engineering Company, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant, Credit Suisse, a Swiss Corporation, Counter-Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Bruce Brown Calpine Corporation William B. Betchart, Counter-Defendants-Appellees, and American Home Insurance Company, Counter-Defendant v. Enervest Corporation, a Colorado Corporation Enervest Management Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Third-Party-Defendants-Appellees

158 F.3d 1051 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 26, 1998

The memorandum established that overwhelming obstacles to successful completion were known to Electric Engineering and were not the result of interference by the other participants in the project. … While Halaco in dicta so summarizes Fjelstad in a parenthetical, Halaco, 843 F.2d at 381 , the parenthetical left out what is for this case the critical qualifying language in Fjelstad: "In these circumstances."

Rode v. Dellarciprete

892 F.2d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 4, 1990

The district court’s factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erro *1183 neous standard. Id. at 1442 ; Silberman, 683 F.2d at 65 . IV. Discussion A. … In fact, a single person, qualified as an expert and with the proper foundation, could produce testimony that would satisfy the four evidentiary requirements of Delaware Valley II.

Chen v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 26, 2004

To qualify as a asylum his wife will be able to join him “refugee,” one must demonstrate that he or in this country. … The three- from Chen’s province in the administrative part test requires the BIA to: (1) identify record clearly state that IUDs are inserted

In Re: Unisys Corp

58 F.3d 896 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 1995

Croup, 6 F.3d 131, 137 (3d Cir. 1993).19 The retirees contend that they can establish these elements.20 19 . … The retirees contend that the record clearly establishes that many of the retirees, including the early retirees or "VRIFs", relied to their detriment on the company's misrepresentations because many employees accelerated

United States v. McGlory

968 F.2d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 1992

We review the district court’s finding of probable cause under the clearly erroneous standard. … We do not think the district court’s finding as to the amount of heroin involved in this case is clearly erroneous.

Gustav A. Adams Andrew F. Dopkins and Robert Malcolm, Deceased, by His Lillian Malcolm v. Trustees of the New Jersey Brewery Employees' Pension Trust Fund Local Union 843, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Falstaff Brewing Corporation and Joseph M. Byrne Co., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey (Newark New Jersey District Civil No. 76-01931) Bruno Michota Walter Lemke Abraham Gellman Lawrence Balback Bolly Bonk William Dunne Bernard Kosciewicz Siegfried Milchram Howard Sears Stephen Gardzinski Harry Wolf Bruno Dziedzic William Riedel Salvatore Guarneri Samuel Monto Fermin Loma Vincent Sadowski Stanley Kiesnowski Anthony Bellina Frank Pavolonis William Roesch Michael Duda Edward Strittmatter Frederick Hubner Peter Rudy Harold Wanthouse Joseph Duffy Joseph Coyle Grace Green, Widow of Harold Green, Deceased v. Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, (Budweiser) P. Ballantine & Sons Pabst Brewing Company Falstaff Brewing Corporation Investors Funding Corporation Rheingold Breweries, Inc. The New Jersey Brewery Employees' Pension Trust Fund Henry T. Hamilton Herbert v. Johnson Frank A. Jackiewicz Frank Sullivan Herbert Heilmann, Jr. Henry Tchorzewski Benno Merker and Arthur Spinello, as Trustees of the New Jersey Brewery Employees' Pension Trust Fund (Newark New Jersey District Civil No. 77-02543) Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("Pbgc")

29 F.3d 863 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 1994

But other factors clearly warned the PBGC it risked dismissal: Anheuser-Busch's brief argued for 41(b) dismissal and went through the 6-factor Poulis analysis, and Pabst included a draft of a dismissal order in its response … If it did, a vast range of parties could claim immunity from dismissal to prevent suffering to third parties.

United States v. Dussan

67 F. App'x 683 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2003

We will sustain the District Court's factual findings unless the findings are clearly erroneous. See United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 351 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, Perez v. United States, 123 S. … Dussan has failed to establish that his participation, knowledge, and culpability are materially less than those of the other participants. See United States v.

Finberg v. Sullivan

634 F.2d 50 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 27, 1980

Although they presented "a vigorous defense in this court," maj. op. at 54, I am not prepared to say that they have any interest in the outcome that qualifies as legally adverse to Mrs. Finberg. … One of the ways in which the garnishee may raise the issue of exemption or immunity is in his answer under new matter.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Vicars

340 F. App'x 807 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 2009

The Court firmly rejected the state’s argument that the certificates at issue were nontestimonial because they qualified as “records of regularly conducted activity” for purposes of the hearsay exception in Rule 803(6). … Lockridge’s report was clearly “testimonial” because it was prepared under circumstances that would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that it would be used prosecutorially at trial; indeed, Dr.

Freedom Card, Inc. Urban Television Network, Inc. v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co. Chase Manhattan Bank Usa, N.A. (Dist. Of De No. 03-Cv-00432) Chase Manhattan Bank Usa, N.A. v. Urban Television Network, Inc. Freedom Card, Inc. v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank Jpmorgan Chase & Co., Third Party (Dist. Of De No. 03-Cv-00217). (Amended Per Clerk's Order Dated 12/2/04)

432 F.3d 463 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 22, 2005

The logical consequence of failing to recognize reverse confusion would be the immunization from unfair competition liability of a company with a well established trade name and with the economic power to advertise extensively … Finally, as we noted above, even if UTN could establish when this happened, it would still not establish the likelihood of confusion that UTN had to establish to prevail on its counterclaim. 103 UTN suggests that intent to