Case law

Mark Jackson v. US General Services Admin

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 13, 2018

First, we must “decide whether the district court had an adequate factual basis for its determination[;]” and, second, we must “decide whether that determination was clearly erroneous.” 1 Initially, the IRS informed … We conclude that this does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance for purposes of supplementing the record on appeal.

Chamberlain v. Giampapa

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

By requiring dismissal for failure to adhere to the statute, the New Jersey legislature clearly intended to influence substantive outcomes. … Thus, "proof of a risk recognized by the professional community must come from a qualified expert."

In Re: Grand Jury Investigation

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

United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453-54 (1971) (holding grand jury may override a Fifth Amendment claim only if the witness is granted immunity co-extensive with the privilege against self-incrimination). … We must "uphold the district court's decision `unless it is clearly arbitrary or without support in the record.' " United States v.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Black Horse Pike Regional Board of Education

84 F.3d 1471 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 1996

Lee clearly established that the “once-in-a-lifetime event” does not justify allowing a public school to authorize collective prayer under the circumstances of that case. … Similarly, the Court in Lee was not convinced that the maturity level of high school students immunized them from the coercion endemic in coerced participation.

Farris v. JC Penney Co Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 18, 1999

When court reconvened in the afternoon of September 25, the record establishes the following exchange: The Court: Good afternoon. What can I do for you? Ms. … We do not believe, however, that [this] ground is so clearly available in this case to justify summary enforcement of the settlement agreements.

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Bollinger, Inc.

573 F. App'x 197 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 2014

In Sereboff, after determining that the insurer sought equitable relief, the Court moved to a second inquiry, asking whether it could establish that “the basis for its claim is equitable.” 547 U.S. at 363, 126 S.Ct. at … Central States contends that this language, along with other Supreme Court decisions interpreting § 502(a)(3), qualify its claim as an equitable lien by agreement, thus permitting it to recover from appellees the funds

Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis

108 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 4, 1940

Indeed, they qualify even under the more limited “well-recognized” of the Selective Service *686 Act, 50 U.S.C.A. p. 165. Professor Elmer T. … Clearly that presupposes a country and therefore presupposes until the millennium at least, its defense.

Mohammad Qatanani v. Attorney General United States of America

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 2025

In his decision, the IJ found that Qatanani had established his admissibility and merited relief as a matter of discretion. … If clear-error analysis applies, the IJ was clearly incorrect. C.

United States v. Michael Merin

465 F. App'x 110 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 7, 2012

See 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (establishing maximum prison sentence of thirty years for bank fraud). … We did note in Kennedy, however, that account holders who are later reimbursed may nevertheless qualify as victims if they ―spent time or money seeking reimbursement.‖ Id. at 422.

United States v. W Indies Transp Co

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 14, 1997

Before and after the severance of the rebar, the Witconcrete II qualified as a "vessel or other floating craft" within the parameters of 33 U.S.C. S 1362(14). … I believe that neither the discharge of the Witconcrete II's stern nor its protruding rebar qualifies as a point source within the meaning of the Clean Water Act.

In Re: NFL Players' Concussion v.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 31, 2019

The District Court also retained continuing jurisdiction over “qualified settlement funds” that were established under the settlement agreement. … The District Court’s denial of Lorentz’s request for a portion of common benefit fees was clearly based on a lack of jurisdiction.

In Re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation

193 F.3d 781 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 7, 1999

The District Court rejected this argument, holding that the complaints allege false and misleading commercial speech, which does not qualify for First Amendment protection. … Clearly, there is a considerable and unresolved factual dispute regarding key elements of the speech at issue.

Impounded v.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1997

. § 5032, which establishes a two-step procedure governing the transfer of juveniles from state to federal court for criminal prosecution. … its factual findings to clearly erroneous review.

Pennsylvania Pharmacists Ass'n v. Houstoun

283 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 13, 2002

Rather, Wilder clearly explained that the reason providers were intended beneficiaries of the Boren Amendment is that the provision by its express terms required states to establish a scheme for provider reimbursement. … Thus, contrary to the Fifth Circuit's conclusion that "it cannot be said that section 30(A) necessarily confers upon each provider an individual right to a particular payment," Section 30(A) clearly does confer upon each

Simon v. Wiessmann

301 F. App'x 107 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 2008

“An abuse of discretion arises when the District Court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.” … First, Stoner is qualified to opine on the issue of estimating costs associated with processing property claims.

Duraco Prod. Inc. v. Joy Plastic Ent.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 15, 1994

As we have mentioned, in Merchant & Evans we held that a feature of the product itself qualifies for trade dress protection only if the plaintiff proves that the imitated feature is nonfunctional, that it has acquired … In sum, secondary meaning in a product configuration case will generally not be easy to establish.

In Re PWS Holding Corp.

228 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 18, 2000

Huff has clearly been an active participant in the reorganization and was heard at length in the confirmation hearing, and in that sense has had its day in court. … Huff clearly would not have acted any differently if the disclosure had been made as it now argues it should have been.

United States v. Paul Bergrin

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 6, 2022

The District Court held that, even if the phone records qualified as newly discovered evidence, they would not probably result in an acquittal at a new trial. … That is not clearly erroneous. It is, on the contrary, completely accurate.

Kiareldeen v. Atty Gen USA

273 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 2001

First, it must independently establish that the agency action giving rise to the litigation was substantially justified. Second, it must establish that its litigation positions were substantially justified. See id. … INS, 904 F.2d. 172, 175 (3d Cir. 1990) ("EAJA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, however, so it must be construed strictly in favor of the United States").

Knight, David and Knight, Kathleen v. Tape, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc

935 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 1991

The addition of subsection (b)(2) clearly is a product of the Craig Court’s concern that due process is violated when delay damages are assessed without regard to the plaintiff’s fault in causing the delay. … However, these opinions do not define these concepts, nor explain their relation to the established requirements of due process and equal protection under federal constitutional law.