Case law

United States v. Introcaso

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 25, 2007

Street Allentown, PA 17901 Counsel for Appellee OPINION OF THE COURT AMBRO, Circuit Judge We decide principally whether a 19th-Century shotgun hanging on a defendant’s living room wall qualifies … But because the Government’s evidence was sufficient to establish that he was in possession of the hand grenades, we affirm the conviction on the second count.

United States v. Beverly Hannibal

663 F. App'x 206 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 20, 2016

Background 1 While Hannibal was being treated for cancer, she qualified for the services of an in-home personal care worker funded by the Medicaid Home and Community Based Services Attendant Care Program. … The burden of establishing grounds for withdrawal is on the defendant, and that burden is substantial. Id.

In Re: William Lans

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 28, 2009

The Determination Order clearly does not respond to a motion to stay or a motion to compel and thus does not fall under the explicit language of § 16(a)(1)(A) or (B). … Thus, to qualify for mandamus relief, a petitioner must demonstrate “that there is (1) ‘no other adequate means’ to attain the relief sought, and (2) a right to the writ that is ‘clear and indisputable[]’ and, (3) even

Nicholas Lomma v. Ohio National Life Assurance C

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 8, 2019

language and 4 do not show that the suicide exclusion period began in 2007, id. at 92; and (3) Plaintiffs established that Ms. … These communications “clearly demonstrated an objective intent to cancel” the Universal Policy and purchase the Term Policy. Scott v. Sw. Mut. Fire Ass’n, 647 A.2d 587, 595 (Pa. Super.

David Greco v. Andrew Bruck

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 13, 2022

See Sprint, 571 U.S. at 78 (identifying three categories of cases that may qualify for Younger abstention); ACRA Turf Club, LLC v. Zanzuccki, 748 F.3d 127, 138 (3d Cir. 2014). … To the contrary, if he could not bring his claims in state court, then Younger abstention would be inappropriate.1 See Moore, 442 U.S. at 425–26 (explaining that abstention is inappropriate if “state law clearly bars the

United States v. Cianfrani

573 F.2d 835 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 16, 1978

The district court then set a trial date and established a timetable for the filing of pretrial motions and briefs. … Similarly, a decision by the judiciary to conduct all its business in secret would not be immune from first amendment scrutiny.

Nyhuis v. Reno

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 15, 2000

But where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs.' " 28 F. Supp. 2d at 894 (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992)). … Florida Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 512 (1982) (stating that courts do not have authority "to alter the balance struck by Congress in establishing the procedural framework for bringing actions underS 1983")). 2.

United States v. Maurello

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 22, 1996

In 1989, defendant briefly established a law practice entitled "Bell and Burdette." … A qualified and licensed attorney may have done a better job for less money, or it may be that Maurello's services were actually inadequate, unknown to his "client."

United States v. Iannone

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 12, 1999

Thus, the district court did not clearly err in determining that O'Dowd was "particularly susceptible" to Iannone's fraud. 2. … True, an occasional exceptional case may not qualify for the enhancement. Pardo is one of the increasingly rare cases to reject an abuse of trust enhancement for fraud.

Bernardo Castillo v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 2011

The IJ concluded that the ―Oregon judgment issued against the respondent did not qualify as a ‗conviction‘ for a ‗crime‘ that could give rise to immigration consequences.‖ Id. at 685. … That is clearly a question of federal, not state, law, but it is not one directly answered in the INA or the BIA‘s opinion in Eslamizar.

In Re: Magic Rest

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

The court held that PACA "is silent on the issue of whether restaurants qualify as `dealers,' " and therefore, "Congress has not spoken directly to the issue of PACA's applicability to restaurants." (A.7). … In Kelley, the livestock dealer was clearly engaged in the business of selling livestock. Kelley was a proprietor of a stockyard that, because it was private, was not itself subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Neely v. Club Med Management Services, Inc.

63 F.3d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 26, 1995

“Navigation of boats in navigable waters clearly falls within the substantial relationship....” Id. Thus, the travels of the Long John qualify despite the short distances involved in its voyages. Cf. Sinclair v. … Unlike the dissent, our opinion clearly states that the quoted proposition is limited to cases where the substance of relevant foreign law is not established.

Deisler v. Aggregates

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 3, 1995

However, the Supreme Court has shown no inclination to depart from its long established solicitude for seamen. … 46 U.S.C.A. § 741 et. seq.15 In reversing we stated: The new question in this case is whether the respondent is liable for the 15 The Suits in Admiralty Act waives the government's sovereign immunity

Keith A. Boudreaux v. American Workover, Inc., Awi, Inc., Defendant-Third-Party v. American Insurance Co., Third-Party

664 F.2d 463 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 7, 1981

The first are those that stand for the long-established and undoubted proposition that landside-type work done on repairing a boat (Mississippi Coast Marine, Inc. v. … The ground upon which this motion was sustained is the statutory immunity of Aquatek, the employer, from any liability to its "maritime employee" within the coverage of the LHWCA, other than the exclusive remedy provided

Lancer Insurance Company, Lancer Management Company, Inc., Plaintiffs/counter-Defendants-Appellants v. D.W. Ferguson & Associates, Douglas W. Ferguson, Defendants/counter-Claim Third-Party and Transportation Insurance Brokers, Inc., Third-Party-Defendant Lancer Insurance Company, Lancer Management Company, Inc., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants v. D. W. Ferguson & Associates, Douglas W. Ferguson, Defendant-Counter-Claim Third-Party v. Transportation Insurance Brokers, Inc., Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant

46 F.3d 1142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 19, 1995

The complaint was filed on May 10, 1991. 10 The four Silberg factors clearly apply to both the letter and the phone calls. … The district court clearly erred in failing to find that the litigation privilege under Cal.Civ.Code Sec.47(b) applied.

Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd of Ed

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 1998

Accordingly, the Collinsgrus sought special education services through the administrative procedures established by the IDEA. … The Collinsgrus concede that they do not qualify for appointment of counsel under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. S 1915 (1994).

United States v. Himelwright

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 25, 1994

In order to qualify for the position, Himelwright was required to take and pass an aptitude test. In early June, Himelwright was advised that the test was only conducted twice a year, in February and August. … ability to carry out the threats in order to establish a violation of section 875(c).

Delaware State Sportsmens Association Inc v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Securit

108 F.4th 194 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 2024

Because injunctions can irreparably injure parties, courts must use “great caution,” granting them “only in cases[ ] where [they are] clearly indispensable to the ends of justice.” … Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.

Beverly A. Azzaro v. County of Allegheny Tom Foerster, an Individual and Chairman, Allegheny County Commissioners and Wayne Fusaro, Beverly Azzaro

110 F.3d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 11, 1997

To establish a prima facie case of retaliatory firing in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, a plaintiff must establish that (1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was discharged … Her purpose with respect to each of these questions was clearly "to gather ammunition for another round of controversy with her superiors." 461 U.S. at 148 , 103 S.Ct. at 1691 .

Sherry Moore v. Secretary United States Depart

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 4, 2017

Although Moore is proceeding pro se on appeal, her brief is well-written and she clearly presents her issues with the District Court’s opinion. … A prima facie case of race discrimination requires a plaintiff to establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4)