Case law

Kona Technology Corp., Plaintiff-Counter Cross-Appellee v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co., Defendants-Cross Defendants-Counter Appellees-Cross and Chevron Chemical Co., Defendants-Cross Claimant-Third Party Plaintiff-Counter Appellee-Cross v. Spcsl Corporation, Third Party Defendant- Defendant- Counter Appellee-Cross

225 F.3d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 13, 2000

Based on our review of the voluminous record, the district court's factual finding is not "clearly erroneous" and thus shall remain undisturbed. See Gebreyesus v. F.C. … Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589-90 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), because Sayre's credentials adduced at trial establish that he was qualified to render expert testimony.

Walker v. City of Camden

57 F. App'x 943 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 30, 2003

While conceding that “Walker’s statements are clearly within the public interest,” 31a, the Court found that the speech was nonetheless unprotected because the Milan … We also agree with the District Court that Walker, a temporary employee who failed to take and pass the requisite competitive exam for the Assistant Business Administrator position, did not show that he was “qualified”

United States v. Denis Kelliher

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 9, 2021

because two of the alleged victims—Jeff McCoun and Frank Martins—do not qualify as victims under the Sentencing Guidelines. … established requirement”); Am.

Hall v. SEPTA

167 F. App'x 902 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 1, 2006

The pre-disciplinary investigation is conducted to establish facts, which support or reject discipline. … Being required to reimburse SEPTA the cost of the radio under the circumstances here is clearly not “conduct ‘that shocks the conscience’ and violates the ‘decencies of civilized conduct.’” County of Sacramento v.

Howard Aubrey v. City of Bethlehem Fire Dept

466 F. App'x 88 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 2012

Cir. 1994) (stating that a statute of limitations defense can be used in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion where “the complaint facially shows noncompliance with the limitations period and the affirmative defense clearly … Under the ADA, we construe this allegation as a failure to accommodate: To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that she is otherwise qualified

United States v. Walter v. Cross, A/K/A Bobo Walter v. Cross, United States of America v. Jules C. Melograne

308 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 2002

Some clearly innocent defendants were found guilty as a result. … Of the four factors, this one most clearly highlighted the damage done by the evidence related to Count 54.

Mark I Restoration SVC v. Assurance Co. of America

112 F. App'x 153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 13, 2004

Mark I argues that, because of this lack of identification, one cannot know whether such substances qualify as “pollutants” under the Assurance Policy. … The court did not, contrary to Mark I’s argument, establish a per se rule that unidentified substances cannot be pollutants.

United States v. Armand Joseph

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 2019

The government need not prove prejudice when the defense has failed to establish sufficient grounds for withdrawing a guilty plea. See United States v. Martinez, 785 F.2d 111, 116 (3d Cir. 1986). … Joseph did would qualify for a minor role adjustment.”).

William Dykeman v. Abu Ahsan

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 12, 2019

The District Court clearly laid out the parameters of the remand for Dykeman before he submitted his amended complaint, yet Dykeman included numerous claims that were unrelated to his mattress and footwear allegations. … Establishing a claim requires proving both an objective component — “a serious medical need”—and a subjective component — “acts or omissions by prison officials that indicate deliberate 2 We also conclude that the

Keegan v. Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Pension Plan

67 F. App'x 744 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 26, 2003

Thus the factual finding on this point appears to be clearly erroneous. … The plaintiffs focus on the first part of the statement but ignore the second, qualifying clause.

Stefan Dancak v. Attorney General United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 29, 2022

persecution on account of a protected ground without regard to a record of past persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). 6  For past persecution claims, noncitizens must establish … Dancak first asserts that we should remand to the BIA and direct that it clearly identify which standard of review—clearly erroneous or de novo—it is applying.

Efe Franklyn Edeki v. Attorney General United States

658 F. App'x 643 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2016

of the Nigerian government so as to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. … instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.’”27 In this case, the BIA found that Edeki had not demonstrated “that the Immigration Judge clearly

Shardar v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 2004

The fact that the police came by later in time looking for the respondent . . . is clearly all because the respondent failed to appear in court and the police were executing a warrant . . . .” Id. … “As a general matter, . . . fear of prosecution for violations of ‘fairly administered laws’ does not itself qualify one as a ‘refugee’ or make one eligible for withholding of deportation.” Chang v.

Zhan Chen v. Attorney General

241 F. App'x 848 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2007

The BIA found that Chen had failed to qualify for either of the exceptions to the one- year filing requirement. … Although the BIA did not discuss all the IJ’s reasons for its adverse credibility finding, it found the reasons stated “herein” to be sufficient to deem that finding not clearly erroneous.

Tibbs v. Electrocore, Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 2024

The plaintiff “need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his prima facie case”; no showing of scienter is required. Id. (quoting Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 382 (1983)). … A reasonable investor would not read the Offering Documents to state that reimbursement under the CVS agreement was already underway, and the Offering Documents clearly disclosed the risk of coverage limitations.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chemical Manufacturers Association Intervenor, Chicago Assoc. Of Commerce & Industry, Illinois Manufacturers' Assoc. And Mid- America Legal Foundation Intervenors. Cerro Copper Products Company, and Village of Sauget v. William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Intervenor

790 F.2d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 1986

These data clearly reveal that a POTW may remove virtually all of a particular pollutant on day one while removing little or none of that pollutant on day two. … A certification that the POTW has an approved local pretreatment program or qualifies for the exception to this requirement found at paragraph (d) of this section. 216 (v) Sludge Management Certification.

Strelchikov v. Attorney General of United States

242 F. App'x 789 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 2007

The law also states, clearly, that “conspiracy to commit” a crime of violence qualifies as an aggravated felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U). … This plea, on its face, establishes that Strelchikov willfully conspired to commit an offense that had as an element the “use . . . or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C

The Major League Umpires Association v. The American League of Professional Baseball Clubs the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (d.c. No. 01-Cv-02790) Office of the Commissioner of Baseball American League of Professional Baseball Clubs National League of Professional Baseball Clubs v. Major League Umpires Association World Umpires Association (d.c. No. 01-Cv-02816) the Major League Umpires Association, No. 02-1103 the Major League Umpires Association v. The American League of Professional Baseball Clubs the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (d.c. No. 01-Cv-02790) Office of the Commissioner of Baseball American League of Professional Baseball Clubs National League of Professional Baseball Clubs v. Major League Umpires Association World Umpires Association (d.c. No. 01-Cv-02816) Office of the Commissioner of Baseball American League of Professional Baseball Clubs National League of Professional Baseball Clubs No. 02-1124 the Major League Umpires Association No. 02-1276 v. The American League of Professional Baseball Clubs the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

357 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 16, 2004

Manifest disregard for the CBA is established when the arbitrator's award is "`totally unsupported by principles of contract construction.'" Exxon Shipping Co. v. … Regardless of whether another interpretation of the CBA would make more sense, or whether we or the District Court would reach a different result if reviewing this case de novo, the Arbitrator's reading is logical and clearly

Versa v. Bifold Company

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 15, 1995

The district court was technically correct in stating that "[t]he fact that the source of the product is clearly designated on the product does not establish that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood … conclude that the district court's contrary finding was clearly erroneous. 7.

Ederjunio Coelho Gomes v. Attorney General United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 2020

But Petitioner does not explain why the drug exchange did not constitute a “transaction,” and he ignores the fact that exchanging GHB for cocaine clearly constitutes criminal activity. … To qualify for deferral of removal under CAT, a petitioner must prove “it is more likely than not that he [or she] will be subject to torture by, at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of a public official.”