Case law

New Jersey Hosp. Assn v. Waldman

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 29, 1995

In order to qualify for federal financial support, a participating state must submit a "State Plan" or a change in payment methods and standards to the Heath Care Financing Administration of the Department of Health and … We cannot say that this factual finding is clearly erroneous.

Royce v. Hahn

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 1998

Both of his previous convictions, however, clearly qualified as crimes of violence under section 924(c)(3), the guidelines and the Bureau's regulation. … Unlike the situation in Stiver and Jacks, this case does not implicate a duly promulgated regulation that purports to establish the agency's statutory interpretation of an otherwise undefined term.

Jane Doe v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 25, 2021

Quid pro quo We agree with the District Court that Doe did not establish a prima facie case of quid pro quo discrimination because she failed to establish causation. 11 Doe’s vague references to Roe “constantly” … Doe does not financially qualify for appointment of counsel, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), and we conclude that appointment of counsel is not necessary here, see generally Tabron v.

United States v. Aaron Davis

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 17, 2023

Having established the company’s loss, the Government asked Wheeler to “tell the jury about the impact of [the] loss on Sutter Health.” App. 613 (emphasis added). … The Government argued the testimony was “clearly relevant” because “the company was defrauded out of the lost money.” App. 613.

Resat Keles v. Barbara Bender

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 18, 2022

Recognizing its limited role, the District Court held that Rutgers did not “breach[] any policy, let alone in a substantial and clearly identified way” when it did not permit Keles to continue his studies as a Ph.D. student … To establish a breach of this covenant, the plaintiff must show “that the party alleged to have acted in bad faith has engaged in some conduct that denied the benefit of the bargain originally intended by the parties.”

Taj Mahal Travel v. Delta Airlines

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 30, 1998

Div. 1958) ("When defamatory words are directed at a group or class of persons rather than an individual, the plaintiff must show that he is a member of the defamed class and must establish some reasonable application of … Clearly, this emphasizes to the reader that some type of criminal misappropriation is involved. The text, therefore, permits an inference of defamatory meaning.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Bathgate

27 F.3d 850 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 5, 1994

In this case, the February letter establishes that the Bank contemplated future loan to Bathgate on certain terms. … Thus, we conclude that the Bathgate defendants' pleading against th directors does not qualify as a third-party complaint under Rule 14(a), because the 40 directors' liability

Rossi v. Standard Roofing Inc (Part I)

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

The evidence in the record regarding Wood Fiber's market position in 1989-90 is not as clearly defined as that of GAF. … In Northwest Wholesale Stationers, the Supreme Court attempted to explain what kinds of boycotts qualify for the per se approach and what kinds do not.

In Re: Cendant Corp

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 9, 2001

We agree with the District Court that Appellants did not qualify for the excusable neglect exception and therefore affirm its holding. C. … Infinding that they were, the New Jersey District Court clearly err ed.

Rose Art Industries, Inc. v. Swanson

235 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 13, 2000

Rose Art admits that some of its packages combine features fr om more than one of the three subgroups for which it seeks trade dress protection but claims that even those packages fall "clearly within the Rose Art Family … Disney must establish the existence of a recognizable trade dress. That is, Disney must establish that its videocassette packages have a consistent overall look.

United States v. Rutherford

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 25, 2014

He contends that the effects cited by the Government were too attenuated in time and cause from the robberies to qualify as effects, whether actual or potential, of the robberies, and that the robberies should at least … 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.

Balazik v. County of Dauphin

44 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 5, 1995

Despite the ambiguity of the term "defendant or defendants," it is well established that removal generally requires unanimity among the defendants. See, e.g., Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. … Cohill clearly overruled Thermtron to the extent that Thermtron had held that only statutory grounds for remand are authorized." Foster, 933 F.2d at 1214.

Tallman v. Barnegat Board of Education

43 F. App'x 490 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2002

The Court dismissed the claims against the OAL on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and on the ground of judicial immunity. App. 144-47. … Proximate cause is an essential element of a claim seeking to establish liability under § 1983. See Martinez v.

Ameristeel Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

267 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 26, 2001

Accordingly, Hoioard Johnson does not bridge the gap between Wiley and Bums, nor does it establish broadly applicable guiding principles that should be implemented when analyzing labor law successorship problems. 3 Still, … However, if one is 35 years of age, he or she does not necessarily qualify. Being a native-born citizen is another sine qua non, in fact.)

Ross v. Hotel Employees

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2001

Moreover, even if he may have conceded the Trusteeship was established for a legitimate purpose, he clearly insists that it was maintained for an improper purpose, and that he has a cause of action under Title III as a result … Thus, Pope's case is clearly distinguishable from Cehaich.

Bulent Gul v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

Gul argues that his conviction under § 2C:33-2.1(b) cannot categorically qualify as an offense relating to a controlled substance because it “represents the kind of inchoate offense that has no federal analog in federal … To “relate” means “‘to show or establish a logical or causal connection between.’” Id. at 995 (quoting Webster’s New International Dictionary 1916 (3d ed. 2002)).

Keith Rosario v. Edward Strawn

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 8, 2022

There is no dispute that threatening to file a lawsuit against the Defendants would qualify as constitutionally protected conduct. See Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148, 161 (3d Cir. 1997). … However, the District Court correctly held that Rosario failed to establish an adverse action or a causal connection.

Estate of Meriano v. Commissioner IRS

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 24, 1998

In addition to creating the estate's account, Lynch and Reardon also established individual accounts with Kidder, Peabody. … Because, the estate maintained a proprietary interest in any distributions prior to the Orphans' Court's approval, the funds withdrawn by Lynch and Reardon qualified as "property of another."

United States v. Cummings

156 F. App'x 438 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 19, 2005

Hall clearly stated and explained his belief that the 6 substance seized at the airport contained cocaine base. … As a qualified expert, Hilton did not need to participate in the operation.

New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection & Energy v. Long Island Power Authority

30 F.3d 403 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 1994

Here, the Coast Guard's "decision not to take enforcement action should be presumed immune from judicial review under" the Administrative Procedure Act. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985). … Arguably, the Coast Guard response to LIPA's Operations Plan could qualify as such an approval, although we would hesitate to apply the term to a mere refusal to exercise discretionary enforcement powers.