Case law

Mahakali Krupa LLC v. Allstate Insurance Co

619 F. App'x 98 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 2015

We decline to accept a reading of that provision immunizing WYO companies from liability for the tortious conduct of their agents.” Id. (emphasis added). … This clearly was not the intent of FEMA when it drafted its regulations to carve out an exception to its reimbursement plan of WYO insurers for the negligent acts of these insurers’ agents.

Bayer Chemicals Corp. v. Albermarle Corp.

171 F. App'x 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 2006

“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. … Code Ann. § 8.1A-303(d) (stating that course of performance evidence “may give particular meaning to specific terms of the agreement, and may supplement or qualify the terms of the agreement”).

United States v. Fred E. Cooper

394 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 5, 2005

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.

National Labor Relations Board v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc.

610 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 1979

The legislative history is clearly to the contrary. … In any event, subsequent cases have qualified whatever pre-election right of review was ostensibly provided in Inland Empire.

In Re Reading Co.

115 F.3d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 13, 1997

See Colorado & Eastern, 50 F.3d at 1536 ("In our case, [the] claim . . . must be classified as one for contribution"); United Technologies, ("[a]pplying this definition, the instant action clearly qualifies as an action for … Clearly, Conrail is seeking contribution from Reading for all potential liability Conrail may owe to 16 the United States.

In re Owens Corning

419 F.3d 195 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 12, 2005

Third, a substantive consolidation order clearly has a preclusive effect on the merits of further litigation. … Assuming arguendo that these findings are correct, they are simply not enough to establish that substantive consolidation is warranted.

Northeast Women's Center v. Mcmonagle

889 F.2d 466 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 9, 1989

Similarly, the appellate court may not reverse where the trial court employs correct standards and procedures, and makes findings of fact not clearly erroneous. … Sec. 15 (a). 15 We note that the plaintiff established RICO liability as to twenty-six of the thirty-one defendants who remained in the case at trial.

In Re: School Asbestos Lit.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 1995

Only children who qualify as orphans under the definition established by the Orphans' Court may be admitted to Girard College. See e.g., 20 Pa. Stat. §§ 711, 712, 722, 7142. … To call the Board an association, would be really calling Girard College an association, which it clearly is not.

United States v. Christopher Lee

701 F. App'x 175 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 12, 2017

We likewise do not need to rely on it to conclude that probable cause was established. … The government responded that the stories qualified as evidence “intrinsic,” (App. at 1027), to the charged offense and that there was therefore no need to consider whether the stories were admitted for a proper purpose

United States v. McKee

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 29, 2007

The government alleged that false Partnership employment tax returns for the quarters ending in March 1998 23 through January 2001 qualified as affirmative acts of evasion for … Moreover, even if we accept that unsupported opinion, Inge is no tax expert and clearly can not be charged with the tax knowledge of a purported IRS tax expert.

United States v. Joseph Massimino

641 F. App'x 153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 15, 2016

United States, 251 U.S. 15, 21–22 (1919), which established that prison officials may open prisoner mail without violating the Fourth Amendment by following established regulations and ensuring that “such seizures are prompted … In light of this evidence, the District Court did not clearly err in applying a 2-level managerial enhancement.

Davis v. Thornburgh

903 F.2d 212 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 1990

In short, she had nothing to gain with respect to Angela by establishing that the procedures she challenges were invalid. … The majority is right in stating that these cases do not establish that a natural parent whose parental rights have been (involuntarily) terminated have visitation rights, at 219, but neither do these, or any case establish

Ronald West v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 3, 2018

The Magistrate Judge reasoned that all that West had alleged was an incident in which there was an argument and he was pushed out of a cell by an inmate, which was an insufficient to establish jurisdiction. … An FTCA complaint alleging physical injury is subject to the standard immunity waiver of § 1346(b)(1) and may proceed in federal court so long as the injuries of which the plaintiff complains would be cognizable under state

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation v. Federal Power Commission

179 F.2d 179 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 1949

The application by the Commission of the provisions of Section 206 seem to us to be clearly separable and capable of standing by themselves. B. … These methods are clearly described in the Commission’s opinion, 5 F.P.C. at pp. 246-256.

Kneipp v. Tedder

95 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 18, 1996

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 … Clearly then, because of these two important distinctions, Gregory is not dispositive of the issue before us. At oral argument, we requested counsel for both sides to submit a letter brief under Fed. R. App.

Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer

220 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 26, 2000

He established a training program and teaches residents the full range of obstetric and gynecological care, including abortions. … Each physician was qualified to testify as an expert in obstetrics and gynecology, including abortion procedures, and did so during the hearing before the District Court. II.

United States v. Ira Littlejohn, Jr.

508 F. App'x 123 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 4, 2013

(App. 12a.) 9 [(4)] selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an explanation for any deviation … Although the District Court is not required to revoke supervised release after a defendant tests positive for drug use, see Blackston, 940 F.2d at 885-86, our precedent establishes that it may, see id. at 891-92.

Affinity Healthcare Group Voorhees LLC v. Township of Voorhees

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 18, 2024

The applicant will be responsible to clearly state all aspects of the proposed use of the property. (F) . . . … that he is a qualified individual with a disability; . . . was excluded from a service, program, or activity of a public entity; and . . . was excluded because of his disability.”

Barker v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 24, 2003

Specifically, the Board noted, contrary to Barker’s assertion, that she may otherwise qualify for an adjustment of status “[was] not sufficient to establish exceptional circumstances,” “such as serious illness of the alien … Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, which is based on such misinterpretation. 5 We note here, however, that Barker’s first argument has no merit because the record clearly

United States v. Glorious Shavers

693 F.3d 363 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 27, 2012

All three subsections qualify the prohibited conduct by requiring that the defendant target testimony or evidence in an “official proceeding.” … state- court trial does not qualify as an ‘official proceeding.’”