Case law

United States v. Cyril J. Niederberger

580 F.2d 63 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 5, 1978

Crim.P. 8(a). 5 Here the joinder was clearly permissible since the crimes charged were all of the same or similar character. … IMMUNITY FOR PROSPECTIVE DEFENSE WITNESSES Niederberger’s second contention is directed to the district court’s refusal to require the Government to seek use immunity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002 , 6 for the proposed defense

Larsen v. Senate Of The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

152 F.3d 240 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 1998

Currently before us are consolidated appeals filed by individual Senators who challenge the district court's rulings rejecting the claims of nonjusticiability, absolute legislative immunity and qualified immunity arising … We regard the denial of the Senators' claim of absolute legislative immunity as analogous to the denial of a government official's right to claim either absolute or qualified immunity, which the Supreme Court held in Mitchell

Karen Hepp v. Facebook

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 23, 2021

However, the codified findings and policies clearly tilt the balance in Facebook’s favor. … In one of the first cases to interpret § 230, the Fourth Circuit undertook a thorough and persuasive examination of the purpose of the statutory immunity established by Congress.

United States v. Walter Morrison A/K/A "Skip" Morrison Appeal of Nick Boscia

535 F.2d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 3, 1976

Villanova were the cause of Sally Bell’s choice not to incriminate herself. 9 Such a finding would seem indeed mandated by the burden of proof established for such a question in Webb . … However, 18 U.S.C. § 6002 does not provide an “immunity bath” for witnesses but merely provides “use immunity,” so that no testimony compelled by the grant of immunity, nor any information directly or indirectly derived from

The Travelers Insurance Company, a Corporation v. Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania, a Corporation

481 F.2d 80 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 1973

Auditing hospital costs and establishing a ceiling were thought to help hold down rising hospital costs by forcing administrative efficiency. … There were also patients who qualified for Medicare or Medicaid, etc., or who wore not covered by any form of reimbursement for hospital or medical costs. 7 .

Gibson v. NJ Dept Law & Pub

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 2005

Appellees moved to dismiss all of the counts, arguing that they were time-barred, and that several of the defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity. … Holtz, 210 F.3d 186, 197 n.14 (3d Cir. 2000).16 Because such a right was not clearly established in 16 In Smith v.

Tracy O'Reilly Kohlrautz, Oilmen Participation Corporation, Counter-Claimant v. Oilmen Particiaption Corporation, Tracy O'Reilly Kohlrautz, Counter-Defendant v. Oilmen Participation Corporation, Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher J. Weber, Receiver, Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant

441 F.3d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 27, 2006

Hallock, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct. 952, 958 , ___ L.Ed.2d ___, ___ (2006) (stating without qualification that "orders rejecting absolute immunity ... and qualified immunity" are "immediately appealable"). … The first Motenko factor is the place where the alleged tortious conduct occurred; that place is clearly Nevada rather than Texas. The second factor is where the injury was suffered. That place may be, in part, Nevada.

A.W. v. THE JERSEY CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION JEFFREY v. OSOWSKI, FORMER DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION BARBARA GANTWERK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS SYLVIA ELIAS, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES PRISCILLA PETROSKY, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION JOHN IWANOWSKI MARY HEPBURN JOAN EDMISTON DENISE BRAAK MARY MACEACHERN EDWARD FAUERBACH, LEARNING DISABILITIES TEACHER-CONSULTANTS NORMA CHRISOMALIS GWENDOLYN JACKSON LINDA COLON RONNE BASSMAN WILLIAM RONZITTI ROXANNE JOHNSON, SUPERVISORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SHANETTE GREEN, TEACHER MELINDA ZANGRILLO, COORDINATOR OF COMPLIANCE JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE (1) — (5), ALL IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION JEFFREY v. OSOWSKI BARBARA GANTWERK MELINDA ZANGRILLO, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR

341 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2003

It is well established that "[a] State may effectuate a waiver of its constitutional immunity by a state statute or constitutional provision, or by otherwise waiving its immunity to suit in the context of a particular federal … It held that the IDEA successfully eliminated this immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment and, alternatively, that section 1403 clearly conditions receipt of IDEA funding on a state's consent to waive its immunity.

In Re: Kaiser Group International Inc., Debtor International Finance Corporation v. Kaiser Group International Inc., Frank J. Perch, Iii, Trustee

399 F.3d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 25, 2005

It based this conclusion on the “well-established” rule of bankruptcy law that “a letter of credit and the proceeds therefrom are not property of the debtor’s estate.” … In our view, the addition of the italicized phrase necessarily acts as a qualifier on the relationship between § 106(b) waivers and compulsory counterclaims.

Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic De Venezuela (In Re De Venezuela)

932 F.3d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 2019

In other words, when a party establishes that an exception to sovereign immunity applies in a merits action that results in a federal judgment—here, the exception for confirming arbitration awards, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)— … First, it contends that § 1963 does not confer personal jurisdiction over it because the only method for establishing jurisdiction is by making proper service under the Sovereign Immunities Act’s service provisions, 28 U.S.C

Schmidt v. Creedon

639 F.3d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 18, 2011

However, because this rule was not clearly established at the time of Schmidt’s suspension, we conclude that appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 Dee considered the suspension of a fireman under … to qualified immunity because this right was not clearly established at the time of his suspension.

Barbara Rees v. Office of Children and Youth

473 F. App'x 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 2012

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 2 Throughout her brief, the Appellant criticizes … Although the constitutional right of access to the Courts is well established within the Third Circuit, the Appellees did not violate clearly established law in this case.

Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc. v. Hess

297 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2002

in a primacy State to comport with the federal provisions establishing the core standards for surface coal mining would end the exclusive State regulation'and undermine the federalism established by the Act. … In order to qualify for the matching funds program, states were required to set criteria to determine a minimum income that would qualify a family for funds, and to determine a payment level of how much the state would actually

Goode v. Rizzo

506 F.2d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 1, 1974

However, a qualified immunity is available as a defense when there is good faith on the part of the defendant. … We believe they should be resolved only upon a record which would clearly specify the grounds upon which the district court relied.

Praxis Properties, Inc. v. Colonial Savings Bank

947 F.2d 49 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 8, 1991

An “essential attribute” of qualified immunity, the Court explained, is “an entitlement not to stand trial under certain circumstances.” 472 U.S. at 525, 105 S.Ct. at 2815. … Because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” the Court determined that an official’s right to qualified immunity “is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to

Commercial Water Services, Inc. v. Chang

36 F. App'x 505 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 2002

“designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed,” under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B), an appellant’s failure to cite the correct order does not impede appellate review of issues that he clearly … They did not deprive CWS of any property and would have qualified immunity even if they had. And then finally, if it is on appeal, we affirm the denial of the motion to add Mr. Moore as a defendant.

Gonzalez v. Young

560 F.2d 160 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 1977

. § 606 (e)(1) and 45 C.F.R. 233.120 by refusing to authorize emergency assistance in the amount of $163.00 “even though Julia Gonzalez is clearly entitled to same under Federal Law . . . … Moreover, the language of section 1343(3) clearly contemplates a distinction between rights secured by the Constitution and rights secured by “any Act of Congress.”

Bethlehem Manor Village LLC v. City of Bethlehem

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 12, 2025

Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” so immunity “is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v. … “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Robert F. Urbano v. The Board of Managers of the New Jersey State Prison

415 F.2d 247 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 5, 1969

Groves: Counties and municipalities do not partake of the Eleventh Amendment immunity enjoyed by the States * *, although they clearly are public bodies and in many cases perform functions on behalf of the State. * * *, Whether … Whether this statute can also serve to grant immunity to officials alleged to have mismanaged a trust fund established for the benefit of prisoners, even though there is a reference in the act to the “management” of inmates

McDowell v. Sheerer

374 F. App'x 288 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 24, 2010

Government officials are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … was clearly established at the time the officer acted.