Case law

United States v. Philiposian

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 25, 2001

Thus, "an adjustment that clearly applies to the conduct of an offense must be imposed unless the Guidelines exclude its applicability." Id. at 671. … Such a reading is clearly disproved by the plain meaning of the Guideline and its applicability to any defendant who merely possesses a high-capacity, semiautomatic weapon.

In re: Steven Perlin

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 2007

The legislative history establishes only that a debtor’s ability to repay is an invalid cause for dismissal. … The recent modifications to counterpart-section 707(b) do not impliedly preclude a bankruptcy court from considering income-and- expense factors, and, as discussed and qualified above, consideration of income-and-expense

Benjamin v. Gen Accident Ins Co

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 9, 2004

Summary judgment is appropriate where the evidence adduced establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c), and thus no reason for a trial. … The Benjamins theorize in their Reply Brief that THG was underfunded, took on more than it could handle, was not qualified to handle claims, and, to that extent, breached its contract with General Accident.

Ryan Castaneira v. Michael Potteiger

621 F. App'x 116 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 419 (1981), and, even if a person is not currently incarcerated, that person’s criminal conduct “necessarily qualified his right” to interstate travel, id. at 421. … Under Rule 12(c), “judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.

Dun & Bradstreet Software Services, Inc. v. Grace Consulting, Inc.

307 F.3d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 2002

At trial, Geac’s counsel conceded that "under the M&D license, we allowed customers and consultants that qualified, to modify the source code for that customer only." … To establish a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must establish: (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) unauthorized copying of original elements of the plaintiff ’s work.

Winters v. Patel

154 F. App'x 299 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 2005

Patel’s 401(k) Plan, Winters needed to obtain either a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) or a survivors annuity. … Winters asserts this evidence is necessary to establish her case against Mrs. Patel for fraud. It is unclear why Winters expects Borger to respond to this appeal.

United States v. Urban

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 23, 1998

Fredman establishes that intent to use the components as a weapon is a required element when the components are commercial in nature and are not designed or redesigned for use as a weapon. In United States v. … Fredman for the proposition that "[f]or unassembled components to qualify as a `firearm' there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the components were intended for use as a weapon."

Mei-Chai Li v. Attorney General

238 F. App'x 777 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 2007

It is just as true that she didn’t have to, as long as the details that she did provide establish her eligibility for “refugee” status, and they clearly did. … Where, as here, we reverse an adverse credibility finding, the appropriate remedy is remand, “to determine whether [the petitioner] qualifies as a refugee . . . ”. Chen v.

NJ Dept Env Prot v. NRC

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 31, 2009

. § 2011 et seq., establishes a “comprehensive regulatory framework for the ongoing review of nuclear power plants located in the United States.” … NRC, that the NRC’s “mere assertion of unquantifiability” does not immunize it from having to conduct a NEPA analysis. See 869 F.2d at 744 n.31.

Ilunga v. Attorney General of the United States

317 F. App'x 293 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 20, 2009

to meet her burden of establishing eligibility for relief. … Withholding of Removal To qualify for withholding of removal pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3)(A) [8 U.S.C.

Drennen v. PNC Bank National Ass'n

622 F.3d 275 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2010

Finally, class members could receive an additional $825 if they resided in one of 21 “Qualifying States” where class counsel determined that class members could have pursued state law claims against CBNV, GNBT, and/or RFC … 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.”

In Re: Paulsboro Derailment Ca v.

704 F. App'x 78 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 28, 2017

(“Dismissal is warranted . . . only when a subsequent revelation clearly establishes that the plaintiff’s claims never could have amounted to the sum necessary to support diversity jurisdiction.”); see also id. … The notice pleading standard, however, does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of establishing jurisdiction.

Bin Wei Ou v. Attorney General of the United States

387 F. App'x 266 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 2010

As respondent notes, petitioners elected to submit numerous documents on their appeal to the BIA without ever discussing those documents in their appeal brief or explaining why the documents qualified as new or material … Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 223 (3d Cir. 2004) (“An alien who fails to establish that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution, so as to be eligible for a grant of asylum, necessarily will fail to establish the right

In Re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation

881 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 22, 2018

Continental Group, Inc., 596 F.2d 573 (3d Cir. 1979), as well as the bar on indirect purchaser actions established in Illinois Brick Co. v. … To the contrary, as noted above, the question of whether the Purchasers suffered any actionable harm is clearly resolved in their favor under Stotter. 29  Application of the AGC factors

Sheet Metal Workers' Local 28 of New Jersey Welfare Fund v. Gallagher

960 F.2d 1195 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 3, 1992

This exception only operates if the fund meets certain requirements: the fund must be established as a trust; it must be established by written agreement; it must have an equal number of labor and management trustees; pension … Given that breaches of fiduciary duty and mere noncompliance with the terms of the trust are not structural defects, we must consider what claims do qualify as structural defects.

Matteo v. Supt SCI Albion

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 24, 1999

Furthermore, although AEDPA refers to "clearly established Federal law, `as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,' " 28 U.S.C. … Therefore, we hold the state court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. C.

United States v. Frumento

563 F.2d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 30, 1977

The Court, however, found no persuasive reason for departing from the firmly established principle to which we have just alluded. … 'It is axiomatic that statutes creating and defining crimes cannot be extended by intendment, and that no act, however wrongful, can be punished under such a statute unless clearly within its terms.' " . . .

Churchill v. Star Enterprises

183 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 1999

families, by establishing a minimum labor standard for leave. … The Appellees clearly demonstrated the presence of the first two requirements set forth in Athlone when they sought judgment in their favor in Churchill II and Churchill acknowledges this point.

United States v. Swinton

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

It states that Apprendi did not address the substance of a statute but “merely established the necessary procedures  12 for establishing those facts” which increase the penalty for a crime. … (noting that Apprendi is “clearly not on the same level as a truly landmark decision such as Gideon [v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)].”), cert. denied, 123 S.

William Grove, Sr. v. Johnson Controls Inc

694 F. App'x 864 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 2017

Those provisions apply to an Appellant’s dependents, use 9 similar language, and are clearly eligibility provisions: during an Appellant’s life, his dependents’ health insurance … benefits will continue until the dependents no longer qualify as “eligible” dependents; after an Appellant’s death, his spouse will remain “eligible” until “the earlier of death or remarriage,” and his children will remain