Case law

Helen L. v. DiDario

46 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 1995

Thus, the ADA and its attendant regulations clearly define unnecessary segregation as a form of illegal discrimination against the disabled.15 Accordingly, the district court erred in holding that the applicable provisions … However, the veteran only qualified if he/she could establish “a physical or mental disorder which was not the result of [his/her] own willful misconduct.” Id. at 535.

United States v. Elijah Brown, Jr.

627 F. App'x 163 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 30, 2015

The District Court concluded, given those circumstances, that the consent was completely voluntary and that conclusion is not clearly erroneous.5 Cf. … On appeal, Brown challenges only the constitutionality of the ACCA and does not contest that his prior convictions qualify as ACCA predicates, although he apparently did so below.

Clarence Owens v. Robertson Anschutz Schneid Crane & Partners PLLC

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

alternatively rejected the claims on statute of limitations grounds, as barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel in light of Rogers I, and, with respect to four of the claims, determined that the defendants were immune … Quarried Bluestone Co., 948 F.3d 607, 610 (3d Cir. 2020) (recognizing that “a sanction for failure to follow court rules” qualifies as a “judgment on the merits”); see id. at 611 (noting that “[a] dismissal with prejudice

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.

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

Hutchins v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

197 F. App'x 152 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 2006

Although he repeatedly claims that he was qualified for the position and attributes any deficient performance explanation to “personality conflicts” stemming from EEOC complaints he had made in the past, he points to no … Valley clearly states that he used UPS’s four recommended criteria in determining Hutchins’s raise.

Rode v. Dellarciprete

892 F.2d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 4, 1990

The district court's factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Id. at 1442 ; Silberman, 683 F.2d at 65 . IV. Discussion A. … In fact, a single person, qualified as an expert and with the proper foundation, could produce testimony that would satisfy the four evidentiary requirements of Delaware Valley II.

Common Cause PA v. Comm PA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 26, 2009

First, an organization may be granted standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the organization or association itself … Clearly these allegations, w hich challenge the legislative process, are insufficient to allege more than a generalized, abstract grievance, shared by all Pennsylvania citizens.

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.

Yinhai Shen v. Attorney General of the United States

530 F. App'x 160 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 8, 2013

To qualify for mandatory withholding of removal, an alien must show that it is “more likely than not” that her life or freedom would be imperiled if she returned to her country because of, inter alia, her political opinion … The record otherwise contains absolutely no indication that Shen was clearly at risk of being tortured if returned to China.

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."

Gile v. Optical Radiation Corporation

22 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 3, 1994

Thus, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the word "requirement," in the context of an express preemption provision, includes state law claims. See also Stamps v. … Gile erroneously contends that if preemption is permitted, medical device manufacturers will be granted immunity for all manner of improper acts.

Kaiser Industries Corp. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

515 F.2d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 4, 1975

First, it ascertained that the claims of the patent do not properly measure the invention: [T]he avoidance of deep penetration is clearly the subject matter which applicants regarded as their invention, and yet the concept … The appellants cannot regain the phrase or qualify the effect of their acquiescence through the affidavits. Parke, Davis & Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 207 F.2d 571, 574 (6th Cir. 1953).

United States v. David Clouden

534 F. App'x 117 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 31, 2013

The Federal Rules of Evidence limit lay witnesses to giving opinion testimony that is: “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a … Clouden] lacked the ability to identify her son’s signature simply because the FBI could not perform a comparison” and only experts were qualified to identify writings. (Gov’t Br. 33-34.)

Gerald M. Hyde, Jr., Cross-Appellant, and Employers National Insurance Company, Intervenor-Appellee v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Pool Offshore and Jeremy Hew Phillips, Third Party

697 F.2d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 7, 1983

William Marmande, M.D. established that the plaintiff weighed one hundred fifty-five pounds at the time of the accident. … This is clearly not the present law in Louisiana. (Emphasis added.)

Z & R Cab, LLC v. Philadelphia Parking Authority

616 F. App'x 527 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 28, 2015

Hibbs involved an Establishment Clause challenge to an Arizona tax program that effectively allowed taxpayers to divert taxes to religious schools. … A contrary reading of the comity doctrine would be difficult—dare I write impossible—to square with the well-established narrowness of the traditional abstention doctrines, which clearly do not apply to this case.

In Re Hechinger Inv

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 7, 2007

Starting with subsection B of the defense, UFP argued that all payments made by Hechinger within the new credit terms (i.e., within eight days of the invoice date) presumptively qualified as payments made in the “ordinary … Md. 1996), established this presumption of ordinariness.

David Lilly Company, Inc. v. Fisher

18 F.3d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 16, 1994

Allen, 246 A.2d 794 (Del.1968), a medical malpractice case, the Delaware Supreme Court established a time of discovery exception. … Notes taken by a Cadwalader attorney during this call reflect Cadwalader's knowledge of the potential problem: "Will Lilly still qualify as a small business concern."

Victoria Vooys v. Maria Bentley

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 2018

thereafter reversed that decision and reinstated the suit based upon its conclusion that the provision of Virgin Islands law allowing a court to order nonresident plaintiffs to post such a bond violated the Privileges and Immunities … of litigation and allows a court to stay litigation until the bond 3 Although we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the decision of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands in this matter, we clearly

PJM Power Providers Group v. FERC

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 24, 2024

(b); 5 U.S.C. § 702 (waiving sovereign immunity for claims for relief “other than money damages”); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 15 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a). 16 Id. § 825l(b) 17 Id. … “a finding that the existing rate was unlawful,” 111 our thorough consideration of the entire record must ensure that the 107 P3 Br. 37. 108 Notably, in neither of § 205(g)’s two enumerated clauses did Congress qualify