Case law

United States v. Joseph Chrzanowski, in No. 73-1591, and Alex Chrzanowski. Appeal of Alex Chrzanowski, in No. 73-1592

502 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 28, 1974

The defense attempted to establish that the beatings had never occurred, that in fact Jelicks had been intoxicated on December 11, 1971, and that the injuries received on that date were self-inflicted. … This rebuttal testimony clearly would be admissible as part of the government’s case in chief.

Terry Skelton v. William R. Rapps, Michael Henry, Glenda Jackson, Individually v. William R. Rapps, Individually Michael R. Henry Bill Larue William R. Rapps Michael Henry Bill Larue Third-Party v. United States of America Health & Human Services Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services Third-Party

187 F.3d 902 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 1999

or qualified immunity with respect to state debt collected under § 454.465 as amended. … The court determined, however, that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to state debt collections occurring prior to the 1984 amendment of § 454.465, because under the statute as originally enacted

Scott v. Plante

641 F.2d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 9, 1981

We have held that qualified immunity is a defense on which the defendants have the burden of proof. Skehan v. … The defense of official immunity depends on defendants establishing good faith, and we concluded in Part VI-A that they failed to carry this burden.

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.

Betts v. New Castle Youth Development Center

621 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 13, 2010

define the scope of the States’ sovereign immunity; it is but one particular exemplification of that immunity.’” … As the District Court duly noted, Pennsylvania and federal law establish that the DPW is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because it is an administrative agency without existence apart from the Commonwealth.

Hill v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

439 F.2d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 18, 1971

Petitioners argue that since they are immune from prosecution, any proceeding in the state court will necessarily deny them their rights protected by this immunity. … C. § 2000a-2 prohibits prosecution of any person seeking service in a covered establishment because of his race or col- or.

Melinda Williams v. Mark Papi

714 F. App'x 128 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 25, 2017

Fisher is thus entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (holding that courts may grant qualified immunity where the right is not clearly established without first deciding whether the right exists).

Wilson v. Zielke

382 F. App'x 151 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 28, 2010

the constitutional right clearly established so that a reasonable person would know that the conduct was unlawful? … Because we find that the right was not clearly established at the time in question, we will reverse.

United States v. Whiteford

676 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 13, 2012

(3) erroneous refusal to grant “use immunity” to a co-conspirator. … Wheeler requested immunity for Harrison in a pre- trial motion, which the court denied, and Whiteford raises the immunity issue for the first time on appeal.

Scooper Dooper, Inc. v. Kraftco Corp.

494 F.2d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 26, 1974

Appellant Scooper Dooper, Inc., requests that this Court undertake a full-scale analysis of the antitrust implications of a qualified refusal to deal by Kraftco Corporation. … Scooper Dooper asserts *843 that this finding of fact is clearly erroneous, suggesting instead that the new marketing-policy began in 1967.

Joseph Carl Brown, Jr. v. Richard P. Joseph, Esquire

463 F.2d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 1972

The Public Defender is appointed by the County Commissioners, § 9960.4; his salary and that of his assistants are established by the county salary board, § 9960.5; office space, furniture, equipment and supplies are furnished … “Prosecutors, state and city attorneys are generally immune under the Civil Rights Act, unless their acts are clearly outside the scope of their jurisdiction.”

In the Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled March 19, 1980 United States of America

680 F.2d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 10, 1982

States contends, the appellee fail to qualify for that protection by proffering an overly-broad motion to quash? … upon and no formal immunization offer under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 or § 6003 was advanced.

Milton Lasher v. Raymond P. Shafer

460 F.2d 343 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 11, 1972

Clearly, however, a decision that each of the appellees is entitled to some form of executive immunity is one that cannot be made on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. … more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

United States v. Babich, Gregory Thomas A/K/A Thomas Babich. Appeal of Gregory Babich

785 F.2d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 12, 1986

Clearly, it is binding precedent. 2 Moreover, it is a precedent established by the full court only three years ago. Thus, what the Supreme Court said in Arizona v. … It is well established that the district court has broad discretion to revoke probation if its conditions are violated. United States v. Hamilton, 708 F.2d 1412 (9th Cir.1983); United States v.

Rouse v. Plantier

182 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 1999

Turning to defendants' qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that the right at issue was clearly established and that the defendants had failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of their actions. … in light of the clearly established law and the information the official possessed.

Shemtov Michtavi v. William Scism

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2015

Appellants appeal that order, and we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a prisoner’s right to treatment of retrograde ejaculation, infertility, or erectile dysfunction is not clearly established … She also concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly establishes that prison officials may not be indifferent to a serious medical need.

Fred Piecknick v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

36 F.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 30, 1994

The court held that Piecknick's allegations as to the personal liability of the individual defendants "fail to sufficiently allege a violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Id. at 7 12 Because we have concluded that no property or liberty interest is implicated, we would not reach the issue of qualified immunity even if the issue of qualified immunity could be determined on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion

United States v. Gerald Lee Brown

423 F.2d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 5, 1970

It cannot be said that the crucial issue on personal belief was established. … establishing a right to the exemption”, citing 32 C.F.R. § 1622.1 (c).

United States ex rel. Wojtycha v. Hopkins

517 F.2d 420 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 29, 1975

was defective, and that his waiver of immunity before the grand jury was coerced. … THE IMMUNITY ISSUE The district court found no merit to petitioner’s claim that he was coerced into testifying before the grand jury.

Holly Judge v. Shikellamy School District

905 F.3d 122 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 2018

The District Court held that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed them from the case. … We therefore have no reason to disturb the District Court’s decision to dismiss the Individual Defendants based on qualified immunity. See De Ritis v. McGarrigle, 861 F.3d 444, 452 & n.3 (3d Cir. 2017).