Case law

D & D Associates Inc v. North Plainfield Board of Educ

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 8, 2014

To establish stigma, the relevant statements by the defendant must be both made publicly and false. Hill, 455 F.3d at 236. … D&D has not argued, nor even clearly suggested, that the ruling was in error for concluding that the contractual rights were wholly assigned.

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.

Saroop v. Garcia

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 1997

An Order in Council is nearly always used in establishing the Constitution of a Dependent Territory. … At the time of Saroop's surrender, the United States which filed its extradition request under the 1931 treaty clearly recognized the treaty as governing the extradition.

In Re: TMI

67 F.3d 1119 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 17, 1995

Because TMI occurred in 1979, well before the effective date of the 1988 Amendments, the qualified prohibition does not apply here. See 42 U.S.C. § 2210 note (1988) (Effective Date of 1988 Amendment). … The provision insures that the Federal taxpayers will not have to pay punitive damages, consistent with established Federal policy, most forcefully stated in the Federal

Ogden Fire Co No 1 v. Upper Chichester Twp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 2007

established that Ogden’s property was not the only site that would remedy Sprint’s problem. … JA at 50.19 (Township’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Facts Established at the Hearings, ¶ 34).

Derevianko v. Atty Gen USA

55 F. App'x 609 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 2003

The IJ further found that the persecution Derevianko suffered in retaliation for his testimony against official corruption would qualify as persecution based on his political beliefs. … Derevianko clearly raised this issue several times in the course of his testimony before the IJ.

Weiss v. Temporary Investment Fund, Inc.

692 F.2d 928 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 12, 1982

Thus I agree that the district court did not err in dismissing those state law and federal law claims as to which the state law business judgment rule clearly applies. … Equity Rule 27, established in 1912, was itself a slight modification of Equity Rule 94 adopted in 1882.

Rong Yi Ni v. Attorney General

210 F. App'x 161 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 21, 2006

Indeed, in the immigration context, the fundamental inquiry should focus more clearly on corroboration, and less on credibility determinations. … See Obale, 453 F.3d at 161 (“An applicant who does not qualify for asylum necessarily does not qualify for withholding of removal.”). 13 including that the letter contained

Johnathan Robins v. Wetzel

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 2022

A complaint is frivolous if it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory or a clearly baseless factual scenario, Mitchell v. … Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 646 (3d Cir. 2009) (explaining that, to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that he or she was deprived of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a state actor).

Logic Technology Development LLC v. FDA

84 F.4th 537 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2023

And it “shall, when appropriate” make that determination “on the basis of well- controlled investigations, which may include 1 or more clinical investigations by experts qualified by training and experience to evaluate the … But that assertion is clearly irrelevant here, where the FDA determined, as a scientific matter, both that Logic’s menthol-flavored ENDS posed a risk to youth non-smokers and that there was insufficient evidence of any benefits

Washington v. Phila Cty Ct

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 9, 1996

Descriptions such as this do not suffice in establishing the reasonableness of a fee petition. Id. (citation omitted). … Epstein and his colleagues clearly meet the standards that we found satisfactory in Rode and Keenan.

Tippins, Inc. v. USX Corp.

37 F.3d 87 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1994

To succeed under either section, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant is a responsible party. See Lansford-Coaldale Water Auth. v. … One basis for establishing a party's responsibility is transporter liability. (..continued) to, clearly and unequivocably encompass liability for USX's pre- transfer torts, under CERCLA or otherwise.

Comm PA Dept Env Res v. Tri State Clinical

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 2, 1999

The sentencing judge clearly knew that Tri-State's ability to pay any fine was suspect at best. 21 Yet, the sanction here was on the corporate entity, not upon the responsible individuals. … The court of appeals reasoned that [i]f postpetition costs "ordinarily incident to operation of a business" that do not confer a benefit on the estate [the tort claims in Reading] can indeed qualify

National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People v. The Medical Center, Inc.

584 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 18, 1978

Volpe, 455 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir. 1971) (Department of Transportation ordered to file an EIS where federal approval of highway construction plans legally required in order to qualify for federal funding). 60 Each of these cases … They contend: (1) that the language of the statute demonstrates that the Secretary is "clearly vested" with discretionary power under the section; (2) that the statute obligates the state agency to make "recommendations"

Subbe-Hirt v. Baccigalupi

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 28, 1996

Separate and apart from the allegations of the plaintiff not qualifying as an "intentional wrong," the facts of the case as alleged by the plaintiff fall short of the New Jersey cause of action of intentional infliction of … The federal court has recognized the extreme difficulty of establishing such a claim in a mere employment relationship when the conduct alleged does not exceed the employer/employee relationship. See Fregara v.

Atlantic Coast v. Bd Chosen Free

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 16, 1995

That fact did not, however, immunize from dormant Commerce Clause review its attempt to regulate the behavior of others in the market. … As a result, those regulations are not immune from review under the Commerce Clause. V.

Williamsport Hospital v. Secretary United States Depart

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 18, 2019

The plaintiff has the burden to establish standing. Finkelman v. N.F.L., 810 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2016). … The express language clearly bars our review of the decision of the Secretary.

Carcaise v. Cemex, Inc.

200 F. App'x 116 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 13, 2006

Therefore, the circumstances at bar except Cemex from landowner immunity. … Ct. 1994) (release stating clearly that it applied to events “arising out of an accident which occurred June 22, 1986”), it was under no obligation to limit the release in this way because, interpreted narrowly, the terms

Mickens-Thomas v. Vaughn

355 F.3d 294 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2004

We observed that “there [was] significant evidence that [the Board] acted upon policies that were established after [his] crime and conviction.” Id. at 387. … Evidence in the file clearly demonstrates your history of alcohol abuse; and, at your recent interview, you admitted abusing alcohol prior to conviction.

Guan Yu Lin v. Attorney General

183 F. App'x 150 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 1, 2006

“If an alien or his counsel of record has been provided with written notice of a removal proceeding, and the alien does not attend, he ‘shall be ordered removed in absentia if the [Department of Homeland Security] establishes … It clearly matters, because, as explained above, there are only two grounds relevant here on which a motion to reopen to rescind an order of removal in absentia could potentially succeed: (1) lack of notice, and (2) “exceptional