Case law

United States v. Beckett

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 2000

Once the government has established the existence of two prior violent or drug convictions, the burden for establishing that the prior convictions were part of a ___________________________________________________________ … Clearly, they instilled fear in all those who saw them, and provoked a police response. They therefore 19 qualify as dangerous weapons under Section 2113(d). See United States v.

United States v. Jermel Lewis

802 F.3d 449 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2015

Harmless Error Alleyne thus establishes that when a defendant is sentenced for brandishing but indicted, tried, and convicted of using or carrying, the defendant’s constitutional rights have been violated. … Thus, an error “with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error.’” Id. at 150 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 282 (1993)).

Dante Burton v. William Schamp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 3, 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

State Auto Ins Co v. Summy

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 1, 2000

Clearly, the case at hand falls outside the ar ea outlined by Brillhart and Wilton as appr opriate for the District Court to exercise its jurisdiction. … When the state law is firmly established, there would seem to be even less r eason for the parties to resort to the federal courts.

Campbell v. Vaughn

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 12, 2000

established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court," Matteo v. … As this decision was not "contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law," or an "unreasonable application of " such law, 28 U.S.C. S 2254(d)(1), habeas relief underS 2254(d)(1) is unwarranted, see Matteo v.

John T. Ex Rel. Paul T. v. Delaware County Intermediate Unit

318 F.3d 545 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 30, 2003

We must determine whether John T. then qualifies as a "prevailing party" under the IDEA fee-shifting provision. We hold that he does not. I. … Section 1415(i)(3) in no way alters the term’s established meaning.

Young, II v. Quinlan

960 F.2d 351 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 1, 1992

The unrebutted facts before us clearly show that Young was preyed upon by each of a succession of cellmates. … We vacated the district court's order on the first disciplinary hearing because Young alleged facts sufficient to establish a due process violation.

McGurl v. Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.

124 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 1997

ESTABLISHMENT OF ORDER OF BENEFITS DETERMINATION RULE A. … That plan's obligation to assume primary liability for a claimant would depend on the fortuity of a claimant's place of residence and application of that state's coordination of benefits law, a consequence clearly disfavored

Melvin Abdullah El-Amin v. Commissioner Social Security

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 30, 2023

Nevertheless, El-Amin could establish subject matter jurisdiction by raising a col- orable constitutional claim that is collateral to the substantive claim of entitlement. Cali- fano v. … Although § 659(a) provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity under certain conditions, § 659(f)(1) enacts an absolute shield to government liability for payments made “pursuant to legal process regular on its face

United States v. Weaver

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 21, 2001

All those who return questionnaires and are not disqualified, exempt or excused, are placed in a separate wheel called the "qualified wheel." App. at 87. … Hence, the pretrial proceedings clearly indicate that he was well aware of the prior convictions that the government was relying upon, further weakening his claim that he lacked sufficient information to put him on notice

Steward v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

231 F. App'x 201 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 2007

In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must show that he: “(1) is over 40; (2) is qualified for the position in question; (3) suffered an adverse employment decision; and (4) was replaced … The District Court concluded that the comment did not clearly show an age bias.

United States v. Albert McCall

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 22, 2024

And our precedent makes clear that, to qualify for the enhancement, the offense need only involve “a greater level of planning or concealment than a typical fraud of its kind.” … Under § 3E1.1(a), a defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction if he “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.”

Welker v. Clarke

239 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2001

Chapter 19 of the PVRA establishes procedur es virtually identical to those of the NVRA for the removal of voters from Pennsylvania registration rolls for state and local elections. … If S 901(B)(2) were interpreted in the manner proposed by Welker, that paramount intent would clearly be defeated.

United States v. Lamont Ridley

386 F. App'x 304 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 6, 2010

distribute cocaine, one count of maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing a controlled substance, and thirteen counts of using a communication facility (telephone) to further a drug conspiracy. 2 Ridley qualified … To establish plain error in this context, Ridley “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” Id. at 83.

Kevin Johnson v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2025

So we presume that they are right and can grant review only if that court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” § 2254(d)(1), (e)(1). … Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 421 (1995) (“On habeas review, we follow the established rule that the state’s obligation under Brady v.

Cramer v. General Telephone & Electronics Corporation

582 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 8, 1978

Although GTE's sale of its ownership interest in the foreign subsidiary qualifies as a sale of securities within the meaning of §§ 13(a) and 18, that sale was not made in reliance upon a false statement in an annual report … By incorporating this committee's report, Cramer's complaint clearly satisfies the specificity requirement of the first sentence of Rule 9(b). 43 The second sentence of Rule 9(b) requires only that "intent, knowledge, and

Kevin Johnson v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 14, 2025

So we presume that they are right and can grant review only if that court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” § 2254(d)(1), (e)(1). … Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 421 (1995) (“On habeas review, we follow the established rule that the state’s obligation under Brady v.

Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co

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

This is clearly not a case in which the plain reading of a statute conflicts with its underlying rationale. Cf. … Finally, we rejected the district court's contention that an employer could violate overtime requirements as a " `reasonable and necessary' competitive response[ ] to the `market for qualified employees.' " Id.

Myrna Moore v. City Of Philadelphia

461 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2006

In evaluating whether actions are materially adverse, we must remain mindful that "it is important to separate significant from trivial harms" because "[a]n employee's decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize … Filing a civil rights lawsuit is clearly protected conduct under Title VII, and in the circumstances of this case, retaliating against William for Michael's lawsuit might well be actionable. 11 William, however, points to

Ortiz v. Dodge

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 3, 1997

S 1613a(c) states: "The United Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit shall have jurisdiction of appeals from allfinal decisions of the district court on appeal from the courts established by local law." … Clearly, the appellate division did not "finally resolve" the question whether the execution sale should be set aside.