Case law

United States v. Byron Recinos

410 F. App'x 544 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 1, 2011

Judge Kugler denied Recinos’s motion for reconsideration, stating that he was “still firmly of the opinion that this qualifies as an intentional purposeful assault.” Id. at 153. … Recinos argues that the government failed to establish that he had committed the offense with the requisite mens rea.7 Because the statute was charged in the disjunctive, an intent issue is raised.

Sandra Turner, Debra Scruggs, Jerrylean Baker, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Jerold Prod, Individually and in His Official Capacity as the Executive Director of the Department of Social Services of the State of California, Department of Social Services of the State of California, and Third- Party v. Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Third-Party

707 F.2d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 1983

The change in agency practice seems established. Whether Congress had adequate notice of that change is unclear. … When the state offsets this against the $771 grant amount, that qualifies her for $351 in AFDC funds, so that a total of $1081 comes into her household each month.

Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole

513 F.3d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 2008

The parties to this Compact have set forth their intentions quite clearly: It is the purpose of this compact and the Interstate Commission created hereunder, through means of joint and cooperative action among the compacting … This section's potential rights-creating language does not qualify as the "unambiguous confer[ralj" of rights required under Gonzaga .

Dante Burton v. William Schamp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2022

We vacated the Magistrate Judge’s order and remanded because the order denied Burton’s motion to proceed IFP without analyzing 4 whether he qualified for IFP status.2 Upon remand … Under Article III of the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish.14 These “inferior courts” include the United States District

Haberern v. Kaupp Vascular Surgeons Ltd. Defined Benefit Pension Plan

24 F.3d 1491 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 25, 1994

Thus, Haberern effectively is relying on parol evidence to contradict clearly defined terms of a plan revealed to her in writing. … At that time it maintained an ERISA-qualified pension plan for its eligible employees. One of the requirements to qualify for the plan was the completion of one year of service.

Railway Labor Executives' Association v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co., Interstate Commerce Commission, Intervenor

845 F.2d 420 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 1988

Thus, Congress spoke more clearly, and more forcefully, in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, Pub.L. No. 96-448, 94 Stat. 1895 [hereinafter Staggers]. … The case, however, is clearly distinguishable. The sale of the Staten Island Railroad was approved pursuant to § 10905, rather than § 10901.

Stafford v. Scottsdale Insurance

416 F. App'x 191 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 3, 2010

Applying these well-established principles of interpretation to the exclusionary clause at issue here, we agree with the District Court that the Policy’s language could not be clearer. … Having concluded that the Animal Exclusion clearly and unambiguously precludes personal liability coverage for the injuries caused by Tank’s attack, we must also conclude that, at the very least, there existed a fairly

Coltec Industries, Inc. v. Hobgood

280 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 1, 2002

Coltec agreed to establish an escrow account into which it would deposit all premiums due during the pendency of its preliminary injunction motion. … The terms were established in a contemporaneous separate written agreement (the "Escrow Agreement"). App. at 232- 35.

United States v. Parise

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 28, 1998

The payments in this case clearly influenced the conduct of the port agents. … The difficult question raised in this appeal is whether Parise's conduct qualifies as a "racketeering activity," which turns on whether his conduct constituted a violation of Pennsylvania's commercial bribery statute, 18

Times Mirror Magazines v. Las Vegas Sports News

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 2000

Because a mark does not qualify for federal trademark registration unless it is distinctive, see 15 U.S.C. … May 26, 34 Factor (G) clearly favors LVSN.

United States v. Davis

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 1999

Nevertheless, the remedy against potential abuses is not to establish a rule, easily circumvented, 9  by which some formal act of the grand jury will be required to establish … Grand Jury Obstruction A grand jury investigation clearly qualifies as a pending judicial proceeding under S 1503. See United States v. 10 Wood, 6 F.3d 692, 696 (10th Cir. 1993).

Heggenmiller v. Edna Mahan Correctional Institution for Women

128 F. App'x 240 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 11, 2005

It is clearly for a jury to decide whether the series of sexual assaults at EMCF constitutes sufficient evidence under the first two prongs of Sample. … While a failure to discharge sexual assailants would be truly shocking, the converse is insufficient, standing alone, to immunize defendants from § 1983 liability.

Gennadiy Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City

45 F.4th 662 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 16, 2022

ii. ensure that the Short- Term Rental use is clearly 4  incidental to the principal residential uses permitted in the … These actions, the plaintiffs argue, established an expectation that they could continue to lease their properties indefinitely on a short-term basis.

Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster

45 F.3d 780 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 1995

He found that [t]he issues of state law clearly predominate in this matter. … accused DeBiase, a police supervisor, of malicious abuse of authority, abuse of police procedure, a conspiracy to terminate Moore, defamation, and violation of § 1983 by depriving him of his "rights, privileges, and immunities

Copelin v. Spirco Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 1999

When reviewing a core proceeding, we accept the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. See id. at 835. … In sum, the District Court did not err by determining that Copelin's claim against Innovo does not qualify as a Class 8 claim.

Cavert Acquisition Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

83 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 2, 1996

In the 1970's the Board's own internal guidelines also clearly endorsed the rebuttable presumption test. … Clearly, Cavert cannot establish an affirmative termination simply by showing a lack of communication between the parties.

Sheet Metal Workers' Local 28 of New Jersey Welfare Fund Arthur Moore William Viotle Joseph Demark Frank Cregan Andy Mihal Richard Domanico Sheet Metal Workers' Local 20 of New Jersey Welfare Fund Ralph A. Quackenbush Gilbert Nelson Edward S. Burke Michael Ryan Brian Deegan Richard Bonner Michael Losito Arthur Ford Henry Pfeifer June R. Pfeifer Thomas Welch John Sirochman, Sr. Milton Kubu John Rupshis George Pace, Sr. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local 27 William G. Sullivan Ronald Boyle Carol Ann Boyle v. Edward Gallagher, Trustee Cornelius P. Sharkey, Jr., Trustee Bernard Yamakaitis, Trustee Harry Harris, Trustee Campbell Johnstone, Trustee Eugene Morrison, Trustee Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union 22 of New Jersey Welfare Fund. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 27 Edward J. Carlough, Trustee Robert T. Stringer, Trustee C.T. Roff, Trustee Cavet Snyder, Trustee Salvatore J. Cardella Rocco Cassio Thomas Cofield Francis Daughenti Robert Davis Ernest E. Finizio Arthur P. Ford Lawrence A. Fredericks Ronald J. Gehring Ronald N. Gedman Herbert Gunsaules Matthew M. Hirsh John Hyland Milton J. Kubu George J. Martin Robert J. Miller June Nolan Frederick Rotz George E. Schwerdt John P. Sirochman Robert J. Smith Henry Zaleski Paul Vella v. Edward Gallagher, Trustee Cornelius P. Sharkey, Jr., Trustee Bernard Yamakaitis, Trustee Harry Harris, Trustee Campbell Johnstone, Trustee Eugene Morrison, Trustee Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 22 of New Jersey Pension Fund

960 F.2d 1195 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 14, 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 … Brewery Employees' Welfare Trust Fund, 732 F.2d 325, 333 (3d Cir.1984). 58 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

California Public Employees' Retirement System v. Chubb Corp.

394 F.3d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 2004

He further qualified: “We all know that you can’t turn a business of this size around in one quarter, but the signs bode well for the future.” (App. at 249a, 263a.) … In this case, the District Court clearly declared valid reasons for denying leave.

United States v. Shaheed

183 F. App'x 168 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 31, 2006

To “show a proper evidentiary purpose, the government must ‘clearly articulate how that evidence fits into a chain of logical inferences without adverting to a mere propensity to commit crime now based on the commission … In this case, then, the relevant drug amount qualified as a “fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum,” i.e., from 30 years to life, and was required to be “submitted to a jury.”

United States v. Sharron Grinnage

486 F. App'x 325 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 2012

Thus, Government conduct violates due process only where it is “shocking, outrageous, and clearly intolerable.” United States v. … Md. 2009) (finding that DNA analysis did not qualify as LCN testing because of the quantity of DNA analyzed); United States v. Williams, No. CR 05-920-RSWL, 2009 WL 1704986, at *5 (C.D. Cal.