Case law

Rocks v. City of Philadelphia

868 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 1, 1989

Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22 , 80 S.Ct. 519, 523 , 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960) (a litigant must generally assert his own constitutional rights and immunities). … Appellants argue that the court erred in denying them standing because they clearly qualify under the facts and holdings of Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 , 88 S.Ct. 1942 , 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968) and Bowen v.

Robert Wade v. City of Pittsburgh, Victor Muto and William Burke

765 F.2d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 26, 1985

Having established the basis for the state court judgment, we next consider its effect on the then pending federal suit. It is helpful to briefly review the Migra decision. … “If, however, the court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted theory or ground (or having jurisdiction, would clearly have declined to exercise it as a matter of discretion),

Zi Z. Ye v. United States

484 F.3d 634 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2007

established at the time of Dr. … Kim’s assurance to Ye for qualified immunity purposes. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001).

Guarnieri v. Borough

364 F. App'x 749 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 4, 2010

immunity because the law was not clearly established; and (5) that, for a variety of reasons, the evidence was insufficient to support liability. … Our decision in San Filippo is clearly established, controlling law, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Francisco Jose Rivero v.

Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

681 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 5, 2012

As a prerequisite to the contract’s termination, Martin Marietta was required, pursuant to the standards established by the AEC and approved by Penn State, to partially decontaminate the Facility. … Therefore, Lockheed feared that, if it did not join the Commonwealth and PADEP to this litigation, its “defense will be materially and improperly impaired because PADEP may not qualify as a potentially responsible party under

Aliota v. Graham

984 F.2d 1350 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 22, 1993

from suit if she was entitled to such immunity under the Westfall Act. … On the other hand, if the court decides disputed questions of material fact after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court’s findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

Robert Boyer v. Michael Mulvey

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 4, 2026

Because Mulvey did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Presumption aside, the District Court’s qualified immunity analysis also erred because it articulated the clearly established law too abstractly.

In Re Grand Jury Investigation, Philip Charles Testa, Witness. Appeal of Philip Charles Testa

486 F.2d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 25, 1973

Bechtle 1 who, pursuant to a petition of the government, signed an order granting him immunity. … The earlier prosecution of the appellant and any investigations which were related to them are clearly different cases.

Vittorio Mineo, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

779 F.2d 939 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 6, 1986

Courts have held that entities created by compact qualify as a state for the purpose of enjoying the immunity of the Eleventh Amendment. For example, in Howell v. … The three dissenting justices could find no waiver of immunity.

Copeland v. Philadelphia Police Department

840 F.2d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 7, 1988

We are ordinarily required to address the validity of the qualified immunity defense as an initial matter, but, because the qualified immunity defense is not available to a municipality, Hynson v. … Therefore, we put aside the issue of the applicability of the qualified immunity defense based on the facts of this case.

Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corp.

350 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Evid. 702 represents the logical outgrowth and memorialization of the Supreme Court’s landmark cases establishing the standards for admitting expert testimony.8 In Daubert v. … Furthermore, the interrogatories clearly provided that the first issue to be considered was whether Yamaha’s jet ski was defective.

Hoyle Green, Individually and as Guardian of Takuye Green, Incompetent v. United States of America, and Third-Party v. William Signorini, Patricia McNabb James Zischler, Dr. Derward Lepley, Dr. Robert Flemma, Cardiovascular Surgery Associates, S.C. And St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Third-Party

709 F.2d 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 7, 1983

Stanford's status as an Air Force officer clearly rendered him immune from suit under the terms of the Act. 9 Prior to obtaining the fellowship with CVSA, Dr. … Clearly, the first three prongs of Wisconsin's borrowed servant test have been met. 51 In the face of the overwhelming evidence that the first three prongs of the borrowed servant test were established by the government,

Twillie v. Foulk

360 F. App'x 301 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 13, 2010

Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Twillie’s claims arising from the destruction of evidence were barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Based on our conclusion that Appellees Nelson and Franklin are entitled to summary *305 judgment for these reasons, we need not address the District Court's conclusions that the doctrine of qualified immunity applies and

Rocks v. City of Philadelphia

868 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 1, 1989

App. at 126. 22 We agree with the district court that the appellants have established article III standing. … that the court erred in denying them standing because they clearly qualify under the facts and holdings of Flast v.

Watson v. Abington Township

336 F. App'x 163 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 2009

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) and dismissed such claims with prejudice; (4) granted Defendants’ motion as to the individual Defendants on qualified immunity grounds; and … The District Court further concluded that the three other individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Port Authority Police Benevolent Ass'n v. Port Authority of New York

819 F.2d 413 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 27, 1987

In 1931, the legislatures established a General Reserve Fund derived from the Authority’s surplus revenues by which the Authority was able to become self-supporting. See N.J. Stat. Ann. 32:1-142 (West 1963); N.Y. … Kline, the Port Authority is clearly an agency of the state and is thus entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Appellants’ section 1983 suit against the Port Authority was properly dismissed.

Bag of Holdings, LLC v. City of Philadelphia

682 F. App'x 94 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 16, 2017

Given the particular facts alleged in this case, we conclude, as did the District Court, that the right at issue was not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. … Stripping qualified immunity based upon broadly stated abstractions of the right at issue “would . . . convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability

Stephine Veselits, a Minor, by Laneeta R. Cruthirds, as Guardian, Grandmother and Next Friend v. Robert J. Veselits

824 F.2d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 1987

As the district court held, it is clearly established in Mississippi case law that a parent is immune to a tort suit by his unemancipated minor child. … The court held that spousal immunity ceases to exist when it is destroyed by the intentional killing of the spouse. The issue here is not spousal immunity, but parental immunity.

United States Fire Insurance Company Transerve Marine, Incorporated v. Allied Towing Corporation, United States of America, & Third Party, and Tug Starcrescent, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem, the Tank Barge Tmi 96, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem, Third Party United States Fire Insurance Company Transerve Marine, Incorporated v. Allied Towing Corporation, United States of America, & Third Party and Tug Starcrescent, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem, the Tank Barge Tmi 96, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem, United States Fire Insurance Company Transerve Marine, Incorporated v. Allied Towing Corporation, United States of America, & Third Party and Tug Starcrescent, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem, the Tank Barge Tmi 96, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem

966 F.2d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 21, 1992

The trial court is uniquely qualified to determine which witnesses are most credible and to resolve conflicts among witnesses' testimony, for the simple reason that it has the benefit of observing the witnesses, and is thereby … United States, 165 F.2d 738, 740 (2d Cir.1948) ("There is no one fixed basis which is decisive where a free and open market for such ships does not exist to establish fair market value.

Michael Rinaldi v. United States

904 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2018

The inmate must "clearly mark 'Sensitive' upon the Request and explain, in writing, the reason for not submitting the Request at the institution." Id. … As for § 542.17(c), the only qualifier to permission to appeal directly is that "the inmate is not given an opportunity to correct the defect and resubmit." Id. § 542.17(c).