Case law

Bert Williams v. Cynthia Metzler, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor and Public Service Electric and Gas Company

132 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 1997

In this ease, jurisdiction to review administrative agency orders has been established by the statute authorizing agency action. … Clearly, he fared less favorably than other retirees. The record discloses other ways of structuring the settlement that would have avoided this problem while putting Williams in the same position as other retirees.

United States v. Keene Courtney Queensborough

227 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 15, 2000

Conner, 930 F.2d 1073, 1076-77 (4th Cir. 1991) (reviewing district court’s resolution of whether govermnent breached plea agreement under clearly erroneous standard); United States v. … We believe that the answer to this question is clearly no....

United States v. Webb

201 F. App'x 890 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 2006

That evidence along with additional corroboration of Webb’s phone calls clearly established his guilt, and this was strengthened further by Webb’s own statements during his cross-examination of various witnesses placing … Webb tried to discredit that testimony, but it is more than sufficient to establish his guilt. 6.

Mendes v. Comm Social Security

105 F. App'x 347 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 14, 2004

She dismissed the chiropractor's evidence because it did not qualify as medical evidence. … This is most unfortunate as, the record clearly demonstrates that at the present time Ms. Mendes's condition meets the requirements for disability."

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Warner

138 F. App'x 393 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 2005

That principle holds true for appeals from the Appellate Division under 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(c), which establishes jurisdiction in this Court for appeals from “final decisions” of the District Court of the Virgin Islands. … As our IOP 9.2 explains, this Court will grant initial en banc rehearing only when a majority of active, qualified judges determines that a prior decision should be reconsidered, and “the case is of such immediate importance

Penn West Associates, Inc. v. Cohen

371 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2004

The application of the word “final” is clarified by the Advisory Committee Notes, which explain that the qualifying word “final” emphasizes the character of the judgments, orders *125 or proceedings from which Rule 60(b) … We note that our dissenting colleague does not challenge our application of well-established principles of finality or the conclusion that an administrative closing order does not constitute a final decision.

Monique Russell v. Educational Commission for For

15 F.4th 259 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 2021

Second, the Commission verifies, using primary sources, that the applicant received a medical degree from a qualifying institution. … A district court abuses its discretion if its “decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.” Id.

James v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority

119 F. App'x 397 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 2005

The EEOC was unable to determine that a Title VII violation was conclusively established, and sent James a right-to-sue letter. … The failure of James’ counsel to file timely opposition to the motion to dismiss would qualify as neglect, meriting the Pioneer analysis. Cf. Lorenzo v.

Chidi Ezeobi v. Warden Fairton FCI

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 2019

until May 2011, Ezeobi had qualified for early deportation to Nigeria. He was set to be voluntarily deported later that August. … custody subject to the provisional arrest warrant of the United States”); SA 70 (internal email confirming the same). 5  [a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established

Roe v. Casey

623 F.2d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 21, 1980

In addition, they argue that established canons of statutory construction counsel against finding that a substantive statute has been repealed by an appropriations act. … Pennhurst, 612 F.2d 84 (3d Cir. 1979) (en banc). 8 In order to qualify for funding under Title XIX, a state must provide at least five basic services to individuals who meet various income requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(

Yun Jun Cao v. Attorney General of the United States of America

407 F.3d 146 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 12, 2005

If credible, Cao’s allegations would qualify her for asylum under the amended 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42), as constituting “other resistance” to China’s population control policy. … In either dollars or yuan, however, this bribe was clearly a substantial sum.

James Abrams v. United States Department of the Navy

714 F.2d 1219 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 1983

Continued employment of persons convicted of violent criminal conduct diminishes public respect for the agency and undermines its efficacy by dissuading qualified job applicants who prefer not to work with or near a co-employee … This double punishment for the same "crime" clearly renders such a procedure unacceptable. 66 Id. at 1260 . As indicated, I need not resolve that issue here.

Gary Lee Rock v. Leroy S. Zimmerman John F. Nelson, District Attorney of Franklin County

959 F.2d 1237 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 24, 1992

As we will see hereafter, the presumption clearly was of no benefit to the State in the circumstances of this case. … More importantly, in answer to this question the trial court reiterated the improper presumption but on this occasion failed to include any qualifying language.

United States v. Sokolow

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 18, 1996

("AIM"), a corporation established and controlled by Sokolow, served as the primary marketing arm of NIBA. … NIBA was established as a successor to PIBA in 1987. In 1988, NIBA was succeeded by the American Independent Business Alliance, Inc.

Brown v. C. D. Mallory & Co.

122 F.2d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1941

The right of the seaman to maintain an *101 action in admiralty under the Jones Act as distinguished from an action at law was established by the Supreme Court in Panama R. R. Co. v. … But, as Congress is empowered by the constitutional provision to alter, qualify or supplement the maritime rules, there is no reason why it may not bring them into relative conformity to the common-law rules or some modification

Society Hill Civic Ass'n v. Harris

632 F.2d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 25, 1980

Under Rule 12(c), like Rule 12(b)(6) (dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted), judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to … As noted above, the Association has claimed on appeal that the tenants do not qualify as displaced persons, and are therefore entitled to no benefits at all under the Relocation Act. See note 10 supra. .

Patricia R. Coomer v. The Fifth Third Bank, Trustee of the Trust of Edgar Paul Romaine, Althea R. Welch

811 F.2d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 1986

The district court found that plaintiff Coomer qualified as a child of William Romaine, thereby entitling her to one-half of the trust assets, and defendants Welch and the trustee-Bank appealed. … The facts established that the settlor created the trust in 1975; therefore, it is his intention at that time which is the controlling factor.

United States v. Ronald Watson

483 F. App'x 683 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 2012

The Government established that Watson was placed in the WRC program, as a condition of which he was subject to WRC rules. … Watson’s technical violation of his conditions of supervised release qualified as a Grade C violation under U.S.S.G.

Sheldon Hannibal v. Secretary PA Dept Corr

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 17, 2024

With respect to the law and its application, a federal court cannot grant relief unless the state-court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined … That ruling therefore receives AEDPA deference.5 Under that standard, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling was not “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined

Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc.

167 F.3d 146 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 3, 1999

To establish defective design and failure to warn, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's product caused her injuries. … Bellanti is qualified to testify regarding the nature of Ms. Cavallo's illnesses . . . .