Case law

Hindes v. Federal Deposit Insurance

137 F.3d 148 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 1998

P. 4(a)(1) (establishing a 60-day period for appeal where a federal agency or officer is a party). … In making the determinations and issuing the Notification, the FDIC clearly was acting in its corporate capacity.

Y. v. Z. v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 2012

To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must establish a “clear probability of persecution,” i.e., that it is more likely than not that he or she would suffer persecution upon returning home. See INS v. … Since this standard is more demanding than that governing eligibility for asylum, an alien who fails to qualify for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal. Zhang v.

United States v. Daniel Touby, United States of America v. Lyrissa Touby

909 F.2d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 1990

The Court struck down the delegation because the statute did not declare any policy as to the transportation of the excess production, did not qualify the President’s authority, and did not establish any criterion “to govern … Section 811(h) was clearly an amendment to the Act.

Indra v. Attorney General of the United States

201 F. App'x 874 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 27, 2006

Indra argues on appeal that he is entitled to an exemption from the asylum statute’s one-year filing requirement and that he qualifies for withholding of removal and protection under CAT. 2 In the alternative, … As we have previously held, “the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) clearly deprives us of jurisdiction to review an IJ’s determination that an asylum petition was not filed within the one year limitations period, and that

Rene Flores v. Carl Danberg

706 F. App'x 748 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2017

To satisfy the first step of the inquiry, Flores must establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the decision to not promote him to the captain position. … To do so, he must show that: (a) he was a member of a protected class; (b) he was qualified for the position to which he applied; (c) he suffered some form of adverse employment action; and (d) the adverse employment action

McCracken v. Freed

243 F. App'x 702 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 2007

It then held that Freed was entitled to qualified immunity because “[e]ven if [Freed’s] decisions and those acting upon them were objectively unreasonable, a reasonable officer would not have thought his conduct was unlawful … The McCrackens’ failure-to-equip claim is clearly without merit because the TRT was equipped with non-lethal ordinance, namely the pepper spray canisters.

Richard Young v. James Grace

525 F. App'x 153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2013

We determine only whether such rulings were ―‗contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States‘‖ or were ―‗based on an unreasonable … Assuming Young properly raised the claim, he has not established that Christopher Cornell‘s testimony was false.

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Remed Recovery Care

136 F. App'x 489 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 13, 2005

Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977) (“In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the … The fall was certainly a “startling occasion,” Cashen’s statement clearly related to the circumstances of that fall, and Cashen himself personally perceived the fall.

Three Rivers Hydroponics LLC v. Florists Mutual Insurance Co

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2023

A party may not offer “an expert witness in the guise of a layperson.” 26 Under Rule 701, lay opinion testimony is admissible if it is “rationally based on the witness’s perception, . . . helpful to clearly understand[] … Here, Lanini declined to testify as an expert witness and thus qualifies only as a lay witness.

Takefumi Uchida v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 5, 2011

It appears clear to us that the BIA found the IJ‟s finding “clearly erroneous,” and we agree. … See id. at 157 (noting that spouses remain eligible for relief if they qualify as a refugee under § 1101(a)(42) based upon their own persecution, or well-founded fear of persecution, for “other resistance” to a coercive

McDonald v. Comm Social Security

293 F. App'x 941 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 26, 2008

SSA determines at step three whether the impairment meets or equals one of the “Listed Impairments,” a list of problems presumed severe enough by the SSA to render one disabled; if the impairment does, the individual qualifies … spinal cord, the alternative threshold requirement of 1.04. 8 Listed Impairment 12.02 defines “Organic Mental Disorders,” in relevant part, as follows: 7 observations clearly

J. Meade Williamson and F.D.I.B., Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corporation and Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Products Division, a Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc., the Federal Aviation Administration, and United States of America v. Braden's Flying Service, Inc., Robert S. Mejia, Parker Hannifin, Airborne Division, Kenneth E. Davis, Robert M. Wreski and F.D.I.B. And Mil, Inc., Parker Hannifin, Airborne Division, in No. 91-1621, Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Products, a Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc., in No. 91-1686. Robert S. Mejia v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, and Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Products Division, a Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc., and Penn Jersey Piper Sales, Inc., and Braden's Flying Service, Inc., and Kenneth E. Davis and Martin W. Wreski and Sherry M. Mraovich and Cynthia M. Penkava, United States of America v. J. Meade Williamson, Mil, Inc. And Future Directions in Banking, Inc. And F.D.I.B., Mil, Inc., and J. Meade Williamson, Parker Hannifin, Airborne Division, in No. 91-1622, Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Products, a Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc., in No. 91-1687. J. Meade Williamson and F.D.I.B., Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Products Division, a Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc., Kenneth E. Davis and Robert M. Wreski v. United States of America, Robert S. Mejia, Braden's Flying Service, Inc., Sherry M. Mraovich and Cynthia M. Penkava, Parker Hannifin, Airborne Division v. F.D.I.B., Mil, Inc. And Robert S. Mejia, Parker Hannifin, Airborne Division, in No. 91-1623, Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Products, a Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc., in No. 91-1688. John T. Kochie, Jr. And Patricia Kochie, His Wife v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, Teledyne Industries, Inc., Penn Jersey Piper Sales, Inc., Braden's Flying Service, Inc., United States of America v. J. Meade Williamson, Kenneth E. Davis, Robert M. Wreski, Braden's Flying Service, Inc., Sherry M. Mraovich, Cynthia M. Penkava, United States, Parker Hannifin Corp., F.D.I.B., Mil, Inc., and F.D.I.B., Inc., Parker Hannifin, Airborne Division, in No. 91-1624, Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Products, a Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc., in No. 91-1689. William Bernhard, Iii, Administrator of the Estate of William Bernhard, Iv, Dec'd, and William Bernhard, III and Sandra Bernhard, in Their Own Right v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. And Penn Jersey Piper Sales, Inc. v. J. Meade Williamson, Kenneth E. Davis, Robert M. Wreski, Braden's Flying Service, Inc., and Future Directions in Banking, Inc., T/a Fdib Corporation, United States of America, Parker Hannifin, Airborne Division, in No. 91-1625, Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Products, a Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc., in No. 91-1690. Carol W. Bellwoar v. Teledyne Continental Motors Inc., Piper Aircraft Corp., Davis Aircraft Products, Inc., Braden's Flying Services, Inc., J. Meade Williamson v. United States of America, Martin Wreski, Kenneth E. Davis, Sherry M. Mraovich, Cynthia M. Penkava, Parker Hannifin, Airborne Division, F.D.I.B. And Mil, Inc., F.D.I.B., Inc., Robert S. Mejia, J. Meade Williamson, United States of America, Parker Hannifin, Airborne Division, in No. 91-1626, Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Products, a Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc., in No. 91-1691

968 F.2d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

While TCM also claimed that the design of the attaching components for the standby vacuum pump was defective, the apportioning of liability by the jury clearly indicates that the jury rejected this contention. 11 Brief for … This product was intended to be used only by qualified electricians who would be aware of the dangers of arcing in such equipment. 29 Id. at 103 (footnote omitted). 30 The issue in Mackowick was not whether the manufacturer

United States v. Cherry

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 25, 2003

Because the District Court did not clearly err in its determination of the amount of loss, we will affirm. … III was incorporated in M aryland and consisted of only a post office box, contrary to Cherry’s assertions that it was qualified contractor.

Karpenko v. Leendertz

619 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2010

Leendertz argues that the District Court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous. We disagree. … We conclude that the District Court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Eli Chabot

793 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

In Shapiro, the Supreme Court qualified this distinction when it held that the Fifth Amendment privilege did not apply to certain private papers that the law required a person to keep. Id. at 33. … To the extent that the Chabots argue that production of the requested account records will establish a significant link in the chain of evidence in their particular case, we are not persuaded that this precludes application

Kenneth Stafford v. Joseph Morris

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 26, 2020

We have consistently held that a statement from a victim witness is generally sufficient to establish probable cause. See, e.g., Sharrar v. … And given that Stafford’s claims fail, we also need not decide whether Morris would have been protected by qualified immunity. 12

Oelsner v. United States

60 F. App'x 412 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 27, 2003

But the Supreme Court has stated clearly that an appellate court is not “required” to raise the affirmative defense of procedural default sua sponte. Trest v. … While both the indictment and jury instructions made reference to drydock work, they clearly defined the offense as work not within “the normal operation and service of a vessel.”

In Re Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.

771 F.2d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 10, 1985

It is undisputable that leak rate falsification had been a serious problem at TMI-2 prior to the accident and further investigation of that problem was clearly called for. … The issue was not developed in those hearings however, because, as the Appeal Board found, the NRC Staff "clearly discouraged any other party from pursuing this at the hearing."

United States v. Antoine Dobson

380 F. App'x 170 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 2010

Whether Langforddavis had a firearm in his possession on January 5, 2008, was clearly material to the grand jury’s investigation. … Accordingly, Dobson’s awareness of Langforddavis’s presence at the hospital on January 5, 2008 was clearly material to the grand jury’s investigation.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of MD,et al. (Part II)

205 F.3d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 4, 2000

However, it cannot seek to establish coverage by arguing that these employees acted with the intent to secure the golden handcuff payments from City Collateral, as those payments qualify asfinancial benefits falling within … That finding will permit us to consider whether the evidence in record is sufficient to establish that there is a jury issue on causation.