Case law

Craig Elias v. Superintendent Fayette SCI

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 30, 2019

To qualify for relief, the defendant must satisfy both prongs of the test. … Hence, we cannot disturb a ruling of the state court unless it “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States[,]”

Birambi v. Department of Homeland Security

134 F. App'x 488 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 9, 2004

To qualify for withholding of removal petitioners must establish that a clear probability exists that their life or freedom would be threatened in Suriname on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular … Although Irene Birambi's brother-in-law was allegedly a member of the Toekajana, his membership alone did not convert what was clearly a family argument into a political situation.

Jenkins v. Reinbold

116 F.3d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 18, 1997

The district court’s conclusion that appellants failed to establish a section 2 violation was not clearly erroneous, and its legal conclusions were sound. Therefore, we will affirm. I. … The finding was not clearly erroneous. g.

United States of America, in 81-2838 v. Howard U. Johnson, in 81-2839

690 F.2d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 30, 1982

Another court has said that "a sufficiently particular qualifying phrase may have the effect of bringing an otherwise 'general' warrant within the constitutional standard...." United States v. … Clearly, Andresen's most important teaching is that a warrant must be read as a whole.

Weiss v. First Unum Life Insurance

482 F.3d 254 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 3, 2007

–as RICO clearly is not a law “specifically relating to the business of insurance.” … With those extremes rejected, the Supreme Court established the following formulation for applying § 1012(b): “When federal law does not directly conflict with state regulation, and when application of the federal law would

Scottsdale Insurance v. City of Easton

379 F. App'x 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 11, 2010

It is well-established that where, as here, the contractual language at issue is clear and unambiguous, the court should not, as Appellees suggest, look beyond the policy to ascertain the parties’ intent. Steuart v. … Immediately thereafter, it provides that “[wjithin this Coverage Form the word ‘insured’ means any person or organization qualifying as such under SECTION III — LAW ENFORCEMENT LIABILITY — WHO IS AN INSURED.” Id.

Petro-Tech, Inc. v. The Western Company Of North America

824 F.2d 1349 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 12, 1987

The former enjoy neither an inherent incapacity for criminal activity nor immunity from its consequences. … The Enright Refining Company, Inc. clearly is not employed by the Enright Refining Company, Inc.; nor is it logical to say that the Enright Refining Company, Inc. is associated with the Enright Refining Company, Inc.

Gunawan v. Attorney General of the United States

305 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 6, 2009

A review of the BIA’s opinion, however, reveals that it clearly considered Petitioners’ submissions. The BIA specifically addressed the 2004 State Department Reports in its analysis. … To qualify as a “pattern or practice,” the persecution must be “systemic, pervasive, or organized.” Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005).

Asplundh Manufacturing Division v. Benton Harbor Engineering

57 F.3d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 20, 1995

In concluding that the district court had improperly held the SAA inapplicable to the case, we noted that the plaintiff, who had offered testimony relevant to establishing SAA violations, was qualified to testify by virtue … In the absence of such proceedings or the establishment of such qualification, the district court should order a new trial.

Olson v. Gen Elec Astrospace

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 1996

To do so he had to establish that (1) he belongs to a protected category; (2) he applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and … However, we believe that Olson clearly demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to the third basis of his ADA claim.

Diego Sica-Lopez v. Attorney General United States of America

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

Nonetheless, we consider the denial of asylum because “an alien who fails to qualify for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal.” Ghebrehiwot v. … Without such a showing, we agree with the agency that the evidence does not establish a basis for him to fear persecution if he were returned to Guatemala.

Lockhart v. Holiday Homes of St. John, Inc.

678 F.2d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 1982

Comment b to section 448 qualifies the general rule by identifying two exceptions to the principle that an agent must himself cause an event to occur in order to be entitled to compensation: 62 If the principal appoints the … The definitions in the Restatement of these two types of agency, however, do not dispose of the contract law question of what language is needed clearly and unambiguously to create an "exclusive power."

Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch Dst

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 5, 1999

Rieger, agreed that during Taylor's hospitalization, she "clearly had paranoid delusions" and was hyperactive and psychotic. … While the District Court agreed that bipolar disorder clearly qualifies as a "mental impairment," the District Court nonetheless concluded that Taylor's impairment did not substantially limit one of her major life activities

Gianfranco Arena v. RiverSource Life Insurance Co

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 18, 2019

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 404 F.2d 1202 (3d Cir. 1968), established that killing oneself does not always qualify as suicide and that intent is required. … The presence of medications does not mean such deaths cannot qualify as suicides. 4 Arena’s second argument is also unpersuasive.

United States v. Johnson

93 F. App'x 416 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 31, 2004

But we review the District Court’s findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Riddick, 156 F.3d 505, 509 (3d Cir. 1998). … Johnson was clearly aware that the government sought to use specific prior convictions to obtain an enhanced sentence.

Franklin Fennell v. Carl Danberg

436 F. App'x 53 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 7, 2011

First, to the extent that Fennell sought damages from Scarborough in his official capacity, Scarborough was immune to suit. See Will v. Mich. Dep‟t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). … Those claims based on injuries that purportedly occurred in 2005 and 2006 are clearly time- barred.

United States v. Robert Haggerty

107 F.4th 175 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 9, 2024

That is, “[t]hey may not directly or clearly address every issue,” and “when applied to some fact patterns, they may prove susceptible to more than one reasonable reading.” Id. … In other words, it establishes increased enhancement of a defendant’s sentence based on a numerical range of “images” involved in his offense.

United States v. Garcia-Moreno

214 F. App'x 134 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 16, 2007

In this case, the District Court concluded that appellant’s co-conspirator, Franco- Garcia, qualified for a two-level minor role reduction, but denied appellant a similar reduction. … vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentences and the sentencing range established

Avco Delta Corporation Canada Ltd. v. United States of America, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Third Party Albert & Harlow, Inc., A/K/A Albert Equipment, Inc., Counter-Defendants-Appellants v. United States of America, and Canadian Parkhill Pipe Stringing, Inc., United States of America v. Wolf Battery & Electric, Inc., Counterdefendants-Appellees, Canadian Parkhill Pipe Stringing, Inc., A/K/A Parkhill Pipe Stringing, Inc., Cross-Defendants-Appellees

484 F.2d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 1973

for interpleader, Natural alleged that Parkhill, Inc., was a New York corporation We also do not have to consider Laborers' claim that even though it did not file a lien under the Illinois Oil and Gas Lien Act it still qualified … Clearly Fuentes and Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 , 89 S.Ct. 1820 , 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969), undercut the constitutionality of most summary prejudgment remedies.

United States v. Bruce Edward Fitzger

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 2009

To establish that Fitzgerald committed this uncharged felony,1 the government was not 1 Although Pennsylvania considers a violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. … Ann. § 1104(2), and therefore qualifies as “another felony offense” within the meaning of Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(6).