Case law

Amax Coal Company, a Division of Amax, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, United Mine Workers of America, Local No. 1854, and United Mine Workers of America, Intervenors. United Mine Workers of America, Local No. 1854 and United Mine Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, Amax Coal Company, a Division of Amax, Inc., Intervenor

614 F.2d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 12, 1980

The training program shall be established by the Joint Western Surface Mining Industry Training Committee." App., at 106a. … It provided, however, that when such work was contracted out, it would be "under the jurisdiction of the UMWA" unless "UMWA contractors qualified to do the work are not available."

Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Borough

91 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 1996

For instance, if the official involved would clearly have absolute immunity for the alleged misconduct, then a subsequent civil rights suit might indeed be marginal, whether or not there is substantial evidence that the misconduct … This list includes "the extent to which ... the making and terms [of the agreement] are ... established by clear and convincing evidence."

Hartmann v. Time, Inc.

166 F.2d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 3, 1948

Texas clearly is in this category, Renfro Drug Co. v. Lawson, 1942, 138 Tex. 434 , 160 S.W.2d 246 , 146 A.L.R. 732 , as probably are Kentucky, Louisville Press Co. v. … The question then is: What does a judgment on a plea of res judicata establish? The answer is that the plea asserts that the former judgment bars the action itself. Hornsby v.

Joseph Figueroa v. Precision Surgical

423 F. App'x 205 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 12, 2011

‟s work performance, including daily reporting, attending monthly or semi-monthly meetings, reporting absences, posting his schedule on a corporate electronic calendar, instructions on how to dress, orders to receive immunizations … The District Court‟s findings are not clearly erroneous, and provide a rational basis for denying preliminary injunctive relief.

Allegheny Intern., Inc. v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.

40 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 4, 1994

The second clause, however, qualifies the first by excepting certain obligations under the November 26, 1980 agreement. 19 The language of this release is virtually identical to the language which the 1986 agreement prescribed … The district court adhered to this earlier decision because it concluded that the decision was not "clearly erroneous."

In Re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation

573 F. App'x 178 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 14, 2014

Discussion5 On appeal, Sanders brings six arguments, only two of which warrant more than passing discussion: first, that the evidence in the record met the burden of proof for establishing a reasonable medical basis … An abuse of discretion may be found if the District Court’s decision “rest[s] on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.” Id.

United States v. Godson

298 F. App'x 171 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 30, 2008

Cir. 2006) (identifying “evasive conduct” as a “plus factor” that could help establish constructive possession); cf. United States v. … The semi-automatic pistol recovered from the vehicle clearly qualifies as a firearm. See U.S.

Bouchard v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

196 F. App'x 65 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 2006

The parties dispute whether Taylor and Brian Frazee, the westbound train’s conductor, were qualified to operate the train. … It claims that Frazee was qualified as a conductor on the date of the accident and was up to date on his operating rules test.

Sherlyn Konstantopoulos and Dimos Konstantopoulos v. Westvaco Corporation

112 F.3d 710 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 6, 1997

[A] plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.” Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. … Based on these facts alone, we are satisfied that this case qualifies as one involving flagrant disregard of the pretrial order. 3 Second, we are satisfied that Westvaco was prejudiced.

K. L. v. Rutgers University

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 2022

We agree with the District Court that the record does not support a finding that Rutgers’s response to either incident was clearly unreasonable. … L.W., 915 A.2d at 547. 5 barred by New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act (“CIA”), N.J. Stat.

Lesko v. Owens

881 F.2d 44 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 27, 1989

The confessions of both Lesko and Travaglia, which were read to the jury in question and answer form in a dialogue between the prosecutors and police officers on the witness stand, clearly establish the motive to kill Officer … Clearly, this is a different issue from whether or not the state promised him directly that the plea would not be used.

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc.

445 F.3d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 22, 2006

We apply the "substantial deference" standard, reversing the district court only if we find the district court's conclusions clearly unreasonable. … The district court's conclusions for certifying the judgment were not "clearly unreasonable." We decline to vacate the certification of judgment. D.

In Re: Exide Tech

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 19, 2008

Pacor clearly holds that in the event of such an indemnification obligation, “related to” jurisdiction might exist. … Accordingly, claims between non-debtors may be related to a bankruptcy case, but generally do not qualify as core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Rossman v. Fleet Bank (R.I.) National Ass'n

280 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2002

An asterisk directed the recipient to a note that stated, "See the TERMS OF PRE- QUALIFIED OFFER and CONSUMER INFORMATION for detailed rate and other information." … The common practice of offering cards with low "teaser" rates would effectively be rendered immune from disclosure requirements.

United States v. Heilman

377 F. App'x 157 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 21, 2010

The District Court’s finding is not clearly erroneous in this case. … The record clearly establishes that, on September 5, 2007, both parties recognized that the Government had not yet 71 produced Jencks materials.

Vineland Fireworks v. Bur Alcohol Tobacco

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 10, 2008

found to be-- (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … , the ATF concluded that proof that Vineland acted with knowledge that its conduct was unlawful – that it distributed fireworks without maintaining the daily records that it knew were required by law – was sufficient to establish

Berkley Specialty Insurance Co v. Masterforce Construction Corp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 11, 2023

define an “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” 3 The parties disagree over whether the property damage that the Brandts sustained qualifies … A judgment on the pleadings may not be “granted unless the movant clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins.

United States v. Princeton Gamma-Tech, Inc.

31 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 1994

Boarhead is clearly distinguishable and does not control the matter before us for two crucial reasons. … Even though it is a potentially responsible party, Gamma-Tech could qualify as a plaintiff in a citizens' suit alleging irreparable harm to the environment.

Elisa Diaz v. City of Philadelphia

565 F. App'x 102 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 2, 2014

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Diaz must show that “‘(1) [she] is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [she] is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of … And the patient states clearly . . . that she had [PTSD], was on medications that did not allow her to be able to work, and for that reason Beckwith could not have put her back to any duty other than no duty.”).

Leslie v. Attorney General of US

611 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 8, 2010

Given the circumstances, the Court stated that “scrupulous observance of departmental procedural safeguards is clearly of particular importance.” Id. … This rule balances the inherent tension between the well-established deference due administrative agencies, see, e.g., Chevron v. Natural Res. Def.