Case law

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,667 Gearhart Industries, Inc., Cross v. Smith International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Third Party Cross v. Texas American/fort Worth N.A., Trustee, Third Party Defendants

741 F.2d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 1984

The district court's findings of fact must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Its conclusions of law, however, are subject to broad review and will be reversed if incorrect. … Smith's tender offer clearly qualifies as a triggering event, as Gearhart doubtless meant it to do.

United States v. Samuel Barnes

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 2026

But the record establishes that the drugs and gun were found in separate bedrooms both located on the second floor of Barnes’s residence. … The District Court also did not clearly err in finding that Barnes failed to rebut the connection indicated by the close proximity between the firearm and drugs.

Ernest J. Ramos, Cross-Claimants and Intervenors-Appellants v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Shell Oil Company, Harold Lee Engineering Co., Cross-Claimants and Third Party v. Livingston Corporation, Cross-Claimants and Third Party Defendants

615 F.2d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1980

Id. at 1293-94 . 38 As in Olsen, Shell owns a drilling platform which qualifies as a "building" under 2322, and the mast is appurtenant to the platform. See McIlwain v. … While the ruling is not entirely clear, it was in response to the following objection, which is clearly grounded on rule 407: MR. NOLEN: Yes, sir.

United States v. Russell A. Werme

939 F.2d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 27, 1991

Werme, then President of Insulco, Inc. learned that B & B was not on the qualified subcontractor/bidder’s list. Werme sent two B & B salesmen to meet with Timothy McCuen, United’s Chief Buyer, to remedy this situation. … Corbin, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 2087 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) (The double jeopardy clause bars subsequent prosecutions for conduct establishing an essential element of an offense for which the defendant has already been

Kerns v. Dukes

153 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 1998

DNREC is not protected from injunctive relief by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Finally, sovereign immunity does not bar an action brought pursuant to S 1983. See Will v.

Selma Jennings v. Bic Corporation

181 F.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 1999

The first element that must be shown to establish negligence is that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. See Robertson v. … Clearly, the "Keep out of reach of children" warning on lighter packaging is there in order to put the adult purchaser, the intended user, on notice that the lighters pose a danger to children.

United States v. Olhovsky

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 16, 2009

Moreover, it is difficult for us to conceive of how the testimony of the very person most familiar with Olhovsky, and best qualified to answer the court’s questions would necessarily be “cumulative.” … This is clearly such a case. Given the factual and procedural error here, it was substantively unreasonable to sentence Olhovsky to six years imprisonment.

Artem V. Gelis v. BMW of North America LLC

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 11, 2026

A district court must also “clearly set forth [its] reasoning for fee awards so that we will have a sufficient basis to review for abuse of discretion.” Id. … Yet the District Court did not explain how, if at all, this case qualifies as exceptional or why the lodestar alone would not have attracted similarly skilled counsel.

United States v. Nopporn Sriyuth, A/K/A Thi Nopporn Sriyuth

98 F.3d 739 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1996

In addition, “[w]hen the evidence of another crime is necessary to establish an element of the offense being tried, there is no ‘other crime.’ ” United States v. Blyden, 964 F.2d 1375, 1378 (3d Cir.1992). … We disapproved of the trial court’s written instruction in Beardshall because it did not contain the qualifying instructions or the explanations of the original oral charge, and thus unduly emphasized the plaintiffs’ theory

Cameron Auxer v. Alcoa Inc

406 F. App'x 600 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 20, 2011

arrangements, and (3) it would require any plaintiff who lost to pay the cost of the defense. 5  As the District Court pointed out, Alcoa submitted an affidavit of a qualified … It clearly did not abuse its discretion. 2.

Monsanto Company v. Rohm & Haas Company

456 F.2d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 9, 1972

Clearly, if the 1968 patent on 3,4-DCPA qualified on its own as a formula or compound per se, without any consideration of its property for “unusual and valuable herbicidal activity” not possessed by related compounds, the … The right of the government to bring an action to *595 annul a patent was firmly established in United States v. Bell Tel.

United States v. Brian Campbell

507 F. App'x 150 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 7, 2012

Contrary to Campbell‟s assertion, the Rules of Evidence and our case law make clear that testimony concerning a person‟s nonverbal emotional reaction does not qualify as an assertion. … The District Court‟s calculation of the loss amount was not clearly erroneous.

Outten v. Kearney

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 2006

AEDPA circumscribes our consideration of Outten’s claims; federal habeas relief will only be granted if the state court decision being challenged “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established [f]ederal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’” Williams, 529 U.S. at 391.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Forest Grove, Inc.

33 F.3d 284 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

Isenhart’s motion, and its finding of fact that she had knowingly and intelligently waived her due process rights was clearly erroneous. … We examine any factual findings the district court relies on to see whether they are clearly erroneous. See United States v.

McGivern v. Meadowink Farms, Inc.

111 F. App'x 661 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 6, 2004

As a result of this determination, the District Court found that McGivern had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … 6  It is not disputed here that McGivern satisfied the first three elements of the prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, i.e., he was within the protected class; he was qualified

Union Railroad v. United Steelworkers of America

242 F.3d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 2, 2001

consolidations would be hindered: "We would invite a barrage of collateral challenges to the ICC's authority which would be likely to frustrate and delay the administration of mer gers in a way that section [11321(a)] was clearly … To qualify for the separation allowance, however, an employee on leave had to return to work within twenty days. Neither the union nor the management sought the ICC's review of the alternative agreement.

Joy Denby-Peterson v.

941 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 28, 2019

It is well- established that one of the automatic stay’s primary purposes is “‘to maintain the status quo between the debtor and [his] creditors, thereby affording the parties and the [Bankruptcy] Court an opportunity to … In sum, the plain language of the automatic stay provision in Section 362(a)(3) and the automatic stay’s legislative purpose indicate that Congress did not intend passive retention to qualify as “an act to . . . exercise

Beeks v. Commissioner of Social Security

424 F. App'x 163 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 19, 2011

disability claim using the standard five-step analysis and determined that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.1 The ALJ concluded that: (1) Beeks had engaged in 1 As established … We also noted that the step one analysis can affect the step four analysis, since Beeks‟s “past relevant work” as a school aide must qualify as “substantial gainful activity,” and we sought clarification of whether the ALJ

Bilbili v. Klein

249 F. App'x 284 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2007

The district court also concluded that Defendants were immune from liability on the Bilbilis’ state law claims under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. … We need not address the first three elements of the doctrine because the Bilbilis clearly can not satisfy the fourth element.5 That element “can be broken down into its 5 The district court’s analysis did

Otto v. PA State Ed Assoc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 12, 2003

No Supreme Court case explicitly establishes a contemporaneous-objection requirement. While International Association of Machinists v. … He acknowledged that litigation conducted by one bargaining unit could establish precedents useful to another bargaining unit.