Case law

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

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

Mercy Catholic Medical Center v. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services

380 F.3d 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 18, 2004

In 1983, Congress amended the Medicare Act again, establishing a prospective payment system for reimbursing inpatient operating costs of acute care hospitals. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d). … But when applying this standard, a reviewing court may not merely rubber-stamp the Secretary’s actions, but must ensure that the agency’s ruling is neither clearly erroneous nor inconsistent with applicable regulations.

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.

Rachid v. Atty Gen USA

93 F. App'x 483 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 7, 2004

Kang, M.D., which stated that his scars were clearly indicative of torture. App. at 107a-10a. The IJ denied Rachid any relief. … But he must prove that he faces a “clear probability of harm” upon return to his home country to qualify for withholding of deportation, Chang v.

United States v. Tevin Lewis

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 29, 2022

Ct. 2015, 2025 (2022) (holding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause). … As the District Court clearly did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis’s motion for a sentence reduction, the appeal does not present a substantial question.

United States v. Joseph Konrad

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 5, 2013

“A person is ‘financially unable to obtain counsel’ . . . if the person’s net financial resources and income are insufficient to obtain qualified counsel” considering “the cost of . . . the necessities of life.” … The defendant has not established extreme hardship in the event of the liquidation or mortgage of the asset.”); United States v. Bedoya, No. 89 CR. 803, 1990 WL 194934, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.

United States v. Scott Allinson

27 F.4th 913 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 4, 2022

Willis, 844 F.3d 155, 164 (3d Cir. 2016), and we need not do so here because we hold that there was enough evidence of an explicit quid pro quo anyway. 8 never clearly acquiesced to their … The Parking Authority solicitorship surely qualifies as a specific matter that would “be pending . . . before [a] public official, in such official’s official capacity.” Id. at 2365; see also United States v.

Pierre v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2008

Willful blindness can be used to establish knowledge but it does not satisfy the specific intent requirement in the CAT. See United States v. … Pain for pain’s sake would clearly be an illicit purpose–but is just one of a number of possible proscribed motives.

Sherry J. Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman

38 F.3d 1380 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 7, 1994

Nearly seven months later, Reeb learned that soon after dismissing her, the EOA had given her former position to an allegedly less qualified male employee. … Equitable tolling steps in to toll, or stop, the running of the statute of limitations in light of established equitable considerations. IV.

Hernandez v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 14, 2006

In sum, “[t]he Landgraf line . . . establishes that a change in law can be found impermissibly retroactive without establishing that some (or all) members of the group affected by the change in law relied on the prior state … Because the statute does not clearly state that it is to be applied retroactively, we proceed to the second step of the Landgraf analysis.

Colacicco v. Apotex Inc.

521 F.3d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 2008

The FDA clearly and publicly stated its position prior to the prescriptions and deaths at issue here. … The Court stated that the agency was “ ‘uniquely qualified’ to comprehend the likely impact of state requirements.” Id. (quoting Lohr, 518 U.S. at 496 , 116 S.Ct. 2240 ).

National Association of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal Service, Association of American Publishers, Inc., Recording Industry Association of America, Inc., Council of Public Utility Mailers, Growers & Shippers League of Florida, Associated Third Class Mail Users, American Bankers Association, American Business Press, Inc., Magazine Publishers Association, Inc., Direct Mail/marketing Association, Inc., Reader's Digest Association, Inc., American Council on Education, United Parcel Service of America, American Newspaper Publishers Association, and the National Newspaper Association, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., National Foundation March of Dimes, United Parcel Service of America, Inc., Intervenors. National Association of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal Service, (Two Cases). Time Incorporated v. United States Postal Service, Time Incorporated v. United States Postal Service. Growers and Shippers League of Florida, and Florida Gift Fruit Shippers Association v. United States Postal Service, American Newspaper Publishers Association and National Newspaper Association v. United States Postal Service, American Business Press, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, American Business Press, Inc. v. United States Postal Service. Magazine Publishers Association, Inc. v. United States Postal Service. Magazine Publishers Association, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, State of Maine, State of Indiana, State of Florida, State of Rhode Island, State of Washington, and State of Arkansas v. United States Postal Service, American Business Press, Inc., States of Utah, Iowa and Illinois, Direct Mail/marketing Association, Inc., Magazine Publishers Association, Inc., Readers Digest Association, Inc., Time, Inc. & United Parcel Service of America, Inc., Association of American Publishers, Inc., Mail Order Association of America, Parcel Shippers Association, American Newspaper Publishers Association & National Newspaper Association, Dow Jones & Co., Inc., Intervenors. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Postal Service, Magazine Publishers Association, Inc., Time Incorporated, United Parcel Service of America, Inc., American Newspaper Publishers Association, National Newspapers Association, State of Connecticut, Direct Mail/marketing Association, Inc., Dow Jones & Co., Inc., Intervenors

607 F.2d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 1979

The record clearly does not provide complete data to compute a ratio of assignable SRC to CRM. … Clearly the Service could not, in the time available, undertake the foundation, baseline studies which ideally should precede such a major new proposal."

Seese v. Volkswagenwerk

648 F.2d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 27, 1981

Brenner as an "accident reconstructionist," qualified to describe the sequence of events surrounding an accident based on the laws of physics, 13 but not qualified to express an opinion on the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries … . 46 As an auto safety engineer, with substantial credentials, Brenner was clearly qualified to testify as an expert on alternative, practical, safer designs for the van's window retention system, particularly since he had

Renee Palakovic v. John Wetzel

854 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 14, 2017

Id. at 517 n.17. 12 The Palakovics could have more clearly preserved their original claims by “specifically refer[ring] to or adopt[ing]” them in the amended complaint. W. Run. Student Hous. … While we have recognized that a particular vulnerability to suicide qualifies as a serious medical need, see Colburn II, 946 F.2d at 1023, a vulnerability to suicide is not the sole need on which the Palakovics’ claim was

United States v. Wilfredo Alvarez Appeal of John A/K/A Jorge Martinez

519 F.2d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 16, 1975

He was quite clearly the most effective government witness on that issue, and he recounted statements made by John Martinez that, while he denied involvement in the crime, “he knows that it was wrong.” (Tr. at 3400). … motion or upon a similar motion in behalf of the accused, or upon its own motion, the court shall cause the accused, whether or not previously admitted to bail, to be examined as to his mental condition by at least one qualified

United States v. Malik Nelso

372 F. App'x 289 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 2010

(SA. 47-49) Thus, the District Court’s determination that McNamara had the experience to qualify as an expert in the field of cocaine manufacturing was not an abuse of discretion. … Therefore, the District Court’s finding pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 was not clearly erroneous. III.

United States v. Michael E. Katora, Daniel A. Squire, Daniel A. Squire, in No. 91-3505. United States of America v. Michael E. Katora, Iii, Daniel A. Squire, Michael E. Katora, Iii, in No. 91-3519. United States of America v. Michael E. Katora, Iii, Daniel A. Squire, Michael E. Katora, Iii, in No. 91-3575

981 F.2d 1398 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 7, 1992

In contrast, where the Commission spoke of culpability without any such explicit limitation, the concept was clearly meant to apply broadly. … There can, of course, be more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy. This adjustment does not apply to a defendant who merely suggests committing the offense.

Bruce Nelson, P-8315 v. Thomas A. Fulcomer Appeal of Bruce Nelson

911 F.2d 928 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 1990

This was designed to establish that the defendant was in fact guilty as a predicate for further interrogation. … Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), qualifies Miranda’s prophylactic ban against police interrogation once the suspect invokes his right to remain silent.