Case law

United States v. Ettrick Wood Products, Inc., and United Bank of Osseo and Robert J. Ofsdahl, Third-Party v. Arnold Brovold and Victor Folkedahl, Third-Party

916 F.2d 1211 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 1990

If the settlement agreement on its face clearly discloses the parties' intent, we must apply the agreement as written. Levy v. Levy, 130 Wis.2d 523 , 388 N.W.2d 170, 173-75 (1986); Loy v. … Directors who manage to inflict injury exceeding the policy limits do not become immune by the greater gravity of their own acts.

United States v. Angelita Adames

567 F. App'x 171 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 2, 2014

―A guilty-plea proceeding is not limited to establishing the factual basis for the plea; it also lays some of the groundwork for the sentence.‖ United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778, 785 (7th Cir. 2012). … Certainly, the District Court’s determination was not clearly erroneous.6 III.

United States v. Reynolds

171 F. App'x 961 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 27, 2006

Here, the defendants assert that a variance occurred because the government did not establish a sufficient connection between lower level workers at different drug corners, and therefore the evidence did not establish … The government clearly established a common goal among the conspirators and the necessity of continuous cooperation for the success of the conspiracy.

Northview Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corporation Joseph P. Nigro, Trustee

227 F.3d 78 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 2000

Similarly, a manufacturer’s efforts to drive a dealer out of business can qualify as bad faith. See Junikki Imports, Inc. v. … Clearly, the first three of the required elements of an ADDCA claim have been met in this case.

Dukes v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc.

57 F.3d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 1995

Wisniewski as a competent and qualified participating obstetrician/gynecologist. … That requirement is relaxed in situations where the ERISA plan chooses to provide benefits through a qualified HMO.

Santiago Fernandez v. City of Elizabeth

468 F. App'x 150 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 15, 2012

On March 5, 2007, Fernandez filed a lawsuit against the Appellees, alleging that they violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a variety of state law claims.5 Appellees moved for summary judgment, based upon qualified … immunity.

Spectacor Management Group v. National Labor Relations Board

320 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 13, 2003

It is apparent that the literal language of the SMG/Union agreement comes clearly within the prohibition ofS 8(e) of the Act. In National Woodwork Mfrs. Ass’n v. … Having found that a trade show floor did not qualify as a construction site, the ALJ determined that the agreement did not fit within the proviso. Id.

William Barnes v. The American Tobacco Company

161 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 12, 1998

This is clearly an individual issue.... These issues clearly preclude certification." Barnes, 176 F.R.D. at 502 . … McNally seeks, and would be qualified for under the Burns Program, is a physical examination and cardiovascular risk assessment. 51 * * * 52 Because annual physical examinations and cardiovascular risk assessment are routinely

Super Tire Engineering Company v. Lloyd W. Mccorkle

550 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 25, 1977

We do not find this decision persuasive because it totally overlooks the fact that in order to qualify for unemployment compensation a striker must be available for, and actively seeking work. 10 Albuquerque-Phoenix Express … City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 , 22 L.Ed. 429 (1875), which established the principle that the Supreme Court will not review for federal error the judgments of state courts that rest upon independent and adequate state grounds

Keith Cauley v. Geisinger Clinic

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 14, 2025

Cauley’s supervisor at the time of the resignation agreement and did not qualify as the “Employer” bound by the neutral reference provision. Dr. Cauley argues that Dr. … The record clearly shows that Geisinger provided a neutral reference letter and offered Dr. Cauley multiple opportunities to review the peer review records. Dr.

Robinson v. Arvonio

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 1994

Under the new standard for collateral review, "[petitioners] are not entitled to habeas relief based on trial error unless they can establish that it resulted in 'actual prejudice.'" … The language of the opinion, however, clearly puts the burden on the habeas petitioner, not on the state.

United States v. Kyle Ishmael

469 F. App'x 86 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 20, 2012

The safety valve provision “establish[es] that a defendant shall be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines without regard to any statutory minimum sentence in certain drug offense cases in the event that . . . … We can reject the District Court’s factual finding that Ishmael did not provide the required information and evidence only if we conclude that those findings were clearly erroneous.

Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Chester

797 F.2d 1164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 21, 1986

While these cases clearly represent a significant development, they do not expressly or impliedly overrule Houchins. … As Times Leader cannot satisfy both "tests of experience and logic, a qualified First Amendment right of public access [does not] attach[ ]." --- U.S. at ----, 106 S.Ct. at 2741 .

Consumer Party v. Davis

778 F.2d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 27, 1985

For example, to qualify any candidate for statewide office in 1984, a political body had to collect 49,000 signatures, while a political party needed only 500 signatures of its registered members to nominate candidates for … Perhaps a full hearing, and further research and briefing, will establish that the legislature did intend flexibility in its body/party scheme.

Zou v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 27, 2006

In order to qualify for the discretionary relief of asylum, an asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing that he or she is a “refugee,” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(42) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a … To qualify for withholding of removal pursuant to the CAT, an applicant must “establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(

Ndayshimiye v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 24, 2009

Although both of those circumstances could be traced to the fact that Ambartsoumian was Armenian, the court concluded that the adverse treatment he faced did not qualify as “ethnic persecution.” 5 Id. … Furthermore, the BIA clearly concluded that Petitioners’ Burundian background, whether it is described as their imputed nationality or their social status as old case-load refugees, played no central role in their persecution

Bamidele v. INS

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 1, 1996

Following his graduation in 1986, Bamidele held a variety of jobs until establishing himself with his current employer in 1990. … Rather, we consider this "a clearly legal issue that courts are better equipped to handle." Dion v. Secretary of Health and Human Serv., 823 F.2d 669, 673 (1st Cir. 1987); see also Lynch v.

Duhring Resource Co v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 4, 2019

Suits against the federal government are normally prohibited based on sovereign immunity. See F.D.I.C. v. … Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”).

Georgevich v. Strauss

772 F.2d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 30, 1985

Plaintiffs are merely seeking to have state court judges follow certain due process procedures, which some of the members of the class already voluntarily follow, and which state statutes clearly provide for other inmates … The court stated, "the purpose of mandamus is not to establish legal rights, but to enforce those rights already established beyond peradventure." Id. at 549, 470 A.2d at 190 . See also Francis v.

Perlin v. Hitachi Capital America Corp.

497 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 2007

The legislative history establishes only that a debtor’s ability to repay is an invalid cause for dismissal. … good faith requirement has been satisfied is a ‘fact intensive inquiry in which the court must examine ‘the totality of facts and circumstances’ and determine where a ‘petition falls along the spectrum ranging from the clearly