Case law

United States v. Raymont Wright

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

first trial that investigators chose not to test the gun for forensic evidence in an effort to cover up that they had planted the gun at the scene. 2 The parties stipulated Wright had been convicted of a qualifying … A district court abuses its discretion when it makes an errant conclusion of law, an improper application of law to fact, or a clearly erroneous finding of fact. McDowell v. Phila. Hous.

Steven A. Conner DPM P.C. v. Fox Rehabilitation Services PC

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 24, 2025

City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”). 39 58 F.4th 93 (3d Cir. 2023). 40 Millennium … No. 102-317, at 25 (1991), would qualify as substantial interests today.3 But I would leave that for the District Court to consider in the first instance on remand.

Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

121 F.3d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 1997

Further, even if the Davises could not arguably be considered intended beneficiaries of the statutory scheme created under the Lead Act and § 4822(a)(1), they may still qualify under the zone of interests test. … Collectively, these factors are clearly sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the zone of interests test. V.

Crissman v. Dover Downs Ent., Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 5, 2001

It provides that when the state has not clearly directed the private act of discrimination, but it "has so far insinuated itself into a position of inter dependence" with the private actor, the state "must be recognized as … For all of the reasons discussed above, the Crissmans have established that a symbiotic relationship exists between Delaware and Dover Downs.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Fredericks

578 F.2d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 24, 1978

United States, 39 that once the issue was raised, the government bore the burden of establishing sanity beyond reasonable doubt, this Court reversed. … Davis, 165 U.S. 373, 378 (1897) (M’Naghten charge qualified by additional defense available if “will has been so completely destroyed that actions are not subject to it, but completely beyond its control”). Parsons v.

DiBiase v. SmithKline

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

Inasmuch as DiBiase had not been replaced, the court concluded that he had failed to establish a prima facie case of wrongful termination under the ADEA. … Thus, the district court used the standard for establishing a prima facie case in the typical age discrimination case.

DiBiase v. SmithKline

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

Inasmuch as DiBiase had not been replaced, the court concluded that he had failed to establish a prima facie case of wrongful termination under the ADEA. … Thus, the district court used the standard for establishing a prima facie case in the typical age discrimination case.

Christ the King Manor, Inc. v. Secretary United States Department of Health & Human Services

673 F. App'x 164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 12, 2016

To qualify for federal funding, a participating state must submit a plan for medical assistance and any proposed plan amendment to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid … (quoting 470 U.S. at 744). 11  Established administrative law principles provide further support for allowing the agency to reopen, reconsider, and redetermine the

Davin v. Dept of Justice

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 1, 1995

In reviewing the government's withholding of records under any subsection of § 552(b)(7), the district court must first be satisfied that those materials qualify as "records or information compiled for law enforcement … The declaration clearly identifies David Lasser and the WAA as the targets of the investigations, thereby fulfilling the first prong of the Pratt test.

Crissman v. Dover Downs Ent. Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 2001

It provides that when the state has not clearly directed the private act of discrimination, but it "has so far insinuated itself into a position of inter dependence" with the private actor, the state "must be recognized as … For all of the reasons discussed above, the Crissmans have established that a symbiotic relationship exists between Delaware and Dover Downs.

Phillips v. Keyport

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

The survey clearly indicated which land was Lot 59 and which was Lot 61. … The record of the June 17th hearing clearly establishes that the district court considered the defendants bound by Council's September 15th resolution and that it intended to consider the 300 foot version of the statute

City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 12, 1998

The absence of antitrust injury and causal connection clearly defeat the City's standing. … Unlike the majority, I am not persuaded that the PUC's failure to act on Allegheny Power's application immunizes these conspirators from antitrust liability.

Battle Born Munitions Inc v. Dicks Sporting Goods

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 26, 2023

A fraudulent performance claim is clearly barred by the gist of the action doctrine. … And even under a favorable construction of the allegations in Battle Born’s complaint, the delayed payment for the ammunition is too attenuated from Battle Born’s inability to finance a helicopter deal to qualify as proximate

United States v. Albert Savani

733 F.3d 56 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 10, 2013

.‖ Although the qualifying amount of cocaine base necessary to trigger the mandatory minimum sentence has now been increased, the government asserts nevertheless that the duration of the statutorily required minimum sentence … That amendment, in my view, clearly states that the “applicable guideline range” of a defendant is calculated at § 1B1.1(a)(7), even if he is exposed to a statutory mandatory minimum.

Chemetron Corp. v. Jones

72 F.3d 341 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 18, 1995

Under Rule 3003(c)(3), these proofs of claim must be filed prior to a bar date established by the bankruptcy court. … This result is clearly supported by the case law.

United States v. James Lignelli

660 F. App'x 118 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 12, 2016

These findings are not clearly erroneous. … A statement by an unknown speaker can qualify for this exception if the government establishes the speaker was likely a member of the conspiracy alleged. United States v.

In Re:Teleglobe Comm

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2007

Here, the first and third prongs are clearly met, as the District Court ordered the production of some 800 documents currently in dispute. … The Restatement takes a more flexible approach than Duplan toward the similarity and types of interests that qualify as “common”: “[T]he common interest . . . may be either legal, 39 factual

Green v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

105 F.3d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 31, 1997

To qualify as a protected activity, Green's court appearance must satisfy the Pickering balancing test. See Pickering v. Board of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will County, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). … Adams County, Colo., 987 F.2d 1473, 1479 (10th Cir. 1993) ("The law is clearly established that the `First Amendment protects the right to testify truthfully at trial.'"). But see Wright v.

United States v. Leggett

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 3, 1998

Clearly, the district court's comments on both occasions were highly inappropriate. … However, that qualifier does not establish that this is not such an occasion.

Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency

648 F.2d 135 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 31, 1981

A. 26 The federal habeas corpus statute for state prisoners, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , establishes custody as the prime requisite for relief. … We fully agree that there are aspects of family life that are not immune from constitutional protection.