Case law

Janet Belczyk Cunningham v. Railroad Retirement Board

392 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 2004

. § 320.39 , the Board may waive the 60-day period if in the judgment of the Board “the reasons given establish that the party has good cause for not filing the appeal form within the time limit prescribed.” … Section 355(f) clearly states its intention to incorporate the types of decisions listed in § 355(c) as being suitable for review by the courts of appeals.

Bekhit v. Attorney General of the United States

239 F. App'x 761 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

The IJ also found that the story of how Bekhit’s sister lost vision in one eye did not help establish Bekhit’s persecution claim. … In this way, “the plain language of” § 212(k) “clearly entrusts the decision to the Attorney General’s discretion.” Zhang v.

Post v. Kidspeace Corp.

98 F. App'x 116 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 27, 2004

Post qualified for short- term disability—was made by the third-party disability insurance carrier. … The District Court raised the issue of equitable estoppel based on KidsPeace’s erroneous interpretation in its March 18, 1999 letter, and found that no estoppel claim could be established.

United States v. Hodge

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 11, 2003

The doctrine of the last antecedent teaches that “qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding” and not to “others more remote.” See Resolution Trust Corp. v. … Lungren) (“The focus of this proposal is clearly to impact on the designer drug phenomena by making it illegal for the clandestine chemists to manufacture and distribute these substances.”).

United States v. McClenton

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 14, 1995

The sole issue in dispute is whether McClenton's three prior convictions for burglary qualify as "crimes of violence" within the meaning of Section 4B1.1. … "However, in our view, the third prong quite clearly permits the court to United States v. Williams, 892 F.2d 296, 303-304 (3d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3221 (1990).

United States v. Askari (Part II - Amended)

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 1998

surrounding the commission of a crime when deciding whether that crime qualifies as a non-violent offense under S 5K2.13. … S 2113(a), a defendant could not qualify for a departure under USSG S 5K2.13 as presently written. . . .

United States v. Askari (Part II)

140 F.3d 536 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 1998

surrounding the commission of a crime when deciding whether that crime qualifies as a non-violent offense under S 5K2.13. … S 2113(a), a defendant could not qualify for a departure under USSG S 5K2.13 as presently written. . . .

United States v. Charles Costanzo

441 F. App'x 883 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2011

There is no basis for this Court to find that the District Court’s determination on abuse of a position of trust was clearly erroneous. … Table provides that four to six criminal history points establish a criminal history category of III.

United States v. Cooper

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 2004

Whether good works qualify as exceptional is evaluated with reference to the offender’s wealth and status in life. See id. at 80. … On the contrary, we explained that the decision to grant a downward departure was not clearly out of line with other then-existing reported cases. Id. (citing United States v.

United States v. Gen Battery Corp Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 2005

As a general matter, we agree it is unlikely that states would attempt to immunize their corporations from CERCLA liability. See generally Richard L. … But the Court clearly did not need to, or choose to, reach the issue. We should infer nothing from its silence.

Rafael Oscar Martinez Del Vall v. OfficeMax North America Inc

680 F. App'x 51 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2017

The employer has the burden to demonstrate “plainly and unmistakably” that the employee qualifies for the exemption. Id. (citation omitted). … Here, the Court’s order clearly contemplated the possibility of future proceedings when it stated that it “will deny Defendant’s fee application without prejudice in the event that Defendant successfully defends against

United States v. Alvin Thomas

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 2018

But his argument does not show that we clearly erred in this case, 8 because the two pieces of evidence he submitted to the District Court do not establish that the lis … Thomas Cannot Establish Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Because He Was Not Prejudiced.

Mitchell Dinnerstein v. Burlington County College

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

Dinnerstein did not clearly address Rule 56(d)’s requirements, either in the District Court or on appeal. See Dowling v. City of Phila., 855 F.2d 136, 139–40 (3d Cir. 1988); see also Hamilton v. … Under this framework, a plaintiff seeking to establish a prima facie case discrimination must show that “(1) [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) [he] was qualified for the position [he] sought to attain or retain

Frederick Livingston v. County of Allegheny

400 F. App'x 659 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 8, 2010

District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Appellees have clearly satisfied this standard.

National Labor Relations Board v. Baldwin Locomotive Works

128 F.2d 39 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 6, 1942

They qualified that insistence, however by the addition of "sifting and analyzing". As they did not go on and explain these latter terms, we must now determine for ourselves the extent of the qualification. … Clearly the triers need only read the portions about which there is a discord and so which are objected to by exceptions and subsequent oral argument.

United States v. Pelullo

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 23, 1999

We hold that the District Court did not clearly err in concluding that the government established by a preponderance "that Pelullo's testimony at the first trial was obtained by means sufficiently distinguishable from the … In sum, the District Court found that the government clearly established that Pelullo had stonewalled Royale's accountants to conceal his diversion of corporate funds, and that absent an explanation justifying that diversion

Tomasko v. Ira H. Weinstock, P.C.

80 F. App'x 779 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 17, 2003

We agree with the District Court that all of the fees making up the $6,100 payment qualified as compensation under both pension plans. … It is well-established in this circuit that prejudgment interest is available in actions to recover benefits under ERISA. Fotta v.

United States v. Serafini

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 1999

The government then immunized him against prosecution. See In re Grand Jury, Misc. No. 95-98 (M.D.Pa. … That formulation has become an established principle of law. See United States v.

United States v. Lam Ta

405 F. App'x 672 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 3, 2011

Under this provision, a district court may depart from the statutory mandatory minimum sentence when calculating a defendant’s sentence if, among other things, the defendant establishes that he has “truthfully provided … This finding was not clearly erroneous. 2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Aleyda Andrickson v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 27, 2011

In November 2007, the IJ asked for documentation so that he could determine whether her conviction qualified as an aggravated felony. … As the BIA recognized, it reviews the IJ‟s finding of facts under the “clearly erroneous” standard, but reviews questions of law de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1101(a)(43)(M).