Case law

Aiken County Aiken County Public Service Authority v. Bsp Division of Envirotech Corporation Insurance Company of North America Envirotech Corporation, & Third Party v. Bay-Con General, Inc. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Third Party and Davis & Floyd Engineering, Inc., Third Party Aiken County Aiken County Public Service Authority v. Bsp Division of Envirotech Corporation Insurance Company of North America Envirotech Corporation, & Third Party v. Bay-Con General, Inc. The Travelers Indemnity Company Davis & Floyd Engineering, Inc., Third Party

866 F.2d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 27, 1989

A careful search of this voluminous record uncovers no evidence introduced by Aiken to establish liability flowing to it from Davis & Floyd. … Here, although there was evidence in support of both positions such that a decision either way would not be clearly erroneous, see Babb v.

Walton v. Eaton Corp.

563 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 18, 1977

This statement, however, is qualified by the following, which is not included in the citation: “But this principle does not require distinct causes of action — that is to say, distinct matters — each of which would authorize … An individual who establishes a cause of action under § 1981 is entitled to both equitable and legal relief, including compensatory and, under certain circumstances, punitive damages.”

Francisco Matos-Almonte v. Attorney General United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2022

finding . . . as to how public officials will likely act in response to the 3 harm the petitioner fears,” and next “assess[] whether the likely response from public officials qualifies … Although Matos- Almonte clearly fears returning to his country, the evidence, viewed objectively, does not compel a conclusion different from that reached by the agency.

Parents United for Better Schools, Inc. v. School District of Philadelphia Board of Education

148 F.3d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 9, 1998

Code S 23.84(b) ("Children need not be immunized if the parent, guardian or emancipated child objects in writing to the immunization on religious grounds or on the basis of a strong moral or ethical conviction similar to … It has merely established a voluntary birth control clinic.

General Electric Co v. Deutz AG

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 31, 2001

In sum, the behavior of Deutz and its officials clearly amounts to "purposeful direction" of business activity toward General Electric, a Pennsylvania resident. … Although the jury unquestionably has a more important role in the American jurisprudential system than in that of any other nation, its verdict is neither infallible nor immune from judicial scrutiny.

United States v. Brandon Kennedy

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 18, 2017

For these reasons, Kennedy has not established that the loss of the dashcam video violated his due process rights. B. … Kennedy further contends “the government’s attempts to qualify the statement by saying the burden was not on the defendant does not negate the error.” Id. at 47.

United States v. Helbling

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 14, 2000

Clearly, sufficient evidence existed to establish that Susman and Sokolic had the requisite intent. … These acts are clearly probative of Helbling's intent. Finally, Helbling contends that the government failed to establish that the plan was subject to ERISA.

EP Medsystems Inc v. Echocath Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 26, 2000

We noted that a per se rule would immunize companies from "the need 22 3. … Indeed, the qualifying language accompanied the representation and we see no reason why the "bespeaks caution" doctrine would be inapplicable.

Senathirajah v. INS

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 9, 1998

To qualify as a refugee, an applicant must establish" by 11 objective evidence that it is more likely than not that he or she will be subject to persecution upon deportation." INS v. … It is clearly a burden for one who is homeless to have to return home.

United States v. Aleman-Figuereo

117 F. App'x 208 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 2004

Therefore, the search qualifies as a border search for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. … 728, 738 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding reasonable suspicion required when search involved cabin on large shipping vessel that constituted living quarters of occupant).3 Because the customs officials here clearly

United States v. Jonathan Snyder

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 30, 2019

On this factual record we cannot say the Court’s denial of a mitigating-role adjustment was clearly erroneous. B. … Accordingly, he cannot establish that it erred in denying the variance unless he shows that “no reasonable sentencing court” would have done so. See United States v.

Walden v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

126 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 26, 1997

In July 1991, Wunsch established a mandatory rotation for the plaintiffs' shifts and directed them not to swap their assigned hours. … Additionally, the statement is vague and does not clearly reflect a company policy of retaliating against "troublemakers," as the plaintiffs suggest.

Rogers v. American Can Co.

305 F.2d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 1962

There remains the Court’s objection to the suit on the procedural ground that the remedy of a stockholder seeking to enforce rights of his corporation was clearly an equitable action and not one enforceable at law. … each case and the rule must be applied practically and flexibly to the end that while corporations and their officials are to receive reasonable measures of protection against strike suits, they are not to be substantially immunized

Michele Donnell v. Correctional Health 10-1211 De

405 F. App'x 617 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 17, 2010

First, the decision to grant summary judgment was not based on a “purely legal” issue.5 A plaintiff in a pretrial detainee prison suicide case must establish each of the following three elements to establish a violation … Ultimately, because we find the District Court clearly erred in holding that the CHS Defendants were not state actors who could be held liable under § 1983, for the purposes of our analysis we assume that the District Court

Sheridan v. EI DuPont de Nemours

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 1996

Multistate Tax Comm'n, 88 F.3d 506, 515 (7th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff established a prima facie case by showing that he was a qualified Filipino Catholic and that promotion went to "a non- Filipino and born-again Christian") … The plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of gender discrimination by showing that he is a man, he was qualified for the job, he applied, but it was given to a woman.

Jennie Nicassio v. Viacom International Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 2, 2019

In any event, it is well established that copyright law does not protect ideas, whether they are described as generic, general, or basic in nature. … Although a defendant cannot immunize itself against liability for infringement by adding new elements on top of those copied, these differences show that Albert has not infringed Rocky’s overall “concept and feel.”

Goldstein v. Johnson & Johnson

251 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 25, 2001

The amount of these payments was capped in order for the plan to maintain its qualified status under the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. S 415. … The District Court's findings are not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Rutherford

236 F. App'x 835 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

Here, trial testimony clearly established that the DePativos closed the Spruce Street office due to the continued fear and unease of employees and patients at the office in the months following the robberies. As Dr. … Clearly, such concerns are absent in our case. .

United States v. Joel Morales

663 F. App'x 166 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 17, 2016

It was not clearly erroneous. 10 he had a managerial role in it. We do not believe the District Court’s finding on either point was clearly erroneous. … The District Court’s factual findings underlying the three-level role enhancement were not clearly erroneous.

Abrams v. Lightolier Inc.

50 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 24, 1995

There we stated that "in ADEA cases that do not qualify for a burden shifting charge under Price Waterhouse v. … The charge clearly required a showing that age was a determinative factor and explained that this meant a showing of but-for cause was needed.