Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,730 results
1.14s
996 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 8, 1993
However, this allegation, even if true, does not establish that the prosecutors acted "outside any legitimate prosecutorial role.” … This narrow exception to the absolute immunity doctrine focuses not on the propriety of the prosecutor's acts, but on whether the acts were done "clearly outside the authority or jurisdiction of the office.” Bauers v.
Abrogated on other grounds by Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997)Cited 97 timesPublished206 F.2d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 1953
He says that he is immune from prosecution for the offenses charged. … The only testimony he introduced on this point was in attempting to establish certain business expenses-.
Cited 26 timesPublishedFederal Law Enforcement Officers Association v. Attorney General New Jersey
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 14, 2024
And the firearms training standards may be established by the state or, in the absence of state standards, by any law enforcement agency within the state. Id. … We have determined that LEOSA’s neighboring statute, 18 U.S.C. § 926A, “establish[ed] a clear positive entitlement” to “transport firearms in certain circumstances” because the statute stated that qualified persons “shall
Cited 0 timesPublishedPlanned Parenthood Of Central New Jersey v. * The Attorney General Of The State Of New Jersey
297 F.3d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 11, 2002
The plaintiffs respond that because the District of New Jersey Local Rule 54.2(a) is an "order of the court," it qualifies as an exception to the limitations period in Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2)(B). … [Thus, t]heir legislative immunity should not protect them when they step outside the function for which their immunity was designed."
Cited 86 timesPublished541 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 2008
We held that we could review the merits of Stehney’s claims because Stehney had standing, and her claims were not barred by the political question doctrine or the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Under that familiar test, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) s/he is a member of a protected class; (2) s/he was qualified for the position s/he sought to attain or
Cited 419 timesPublishedUnited States v. Dennis A. Callaway, Cal R. Devyver Cal R. Devyver
446 F.2d 753 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 1971
While DeVyver did not actually indicate that he was attached to a particular American Mission during the course of his successful attempts to convince the Paramus police that he was entitled to diplomatic immunity, it is … The evidence in the present case clearly established that DeVyver’s conduct was in *755 direct violation of this purpose. Accordingly his conviction under Section 915 is valid and must stand.
Cited 15 timesPublishedSkehan v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College
669 F.2d 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 26, 1982
Rather, the opinion focuses on the judicially-created common law doctrine of sovereign immunity. 18 In light of the requirement applicable in this case that states 6 must clearly and expressly waive their Eleventh Amendment … Under the standards established in Chung v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources
923 F.2d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 22, 1991
Although the adequacy of the proceeding before the Commonwealth Court may have been in doubt at the time of the district court’s February order of dismissal, the Commonwealth Court’s March enforcement order clearly establishes … We need not address the more general substantive question of the Commonwealth Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the sovereign immunity defense, 8 because clearly, under these state enforcement provisions, the United States
Cited 83 timesPublishedS.R.P. Ex Rel. Abunabba v. United States
676 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2012
Although a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that his claims fall within the scope of the FTCA’s waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity (i.e., that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) are met … However, there is clearly a logical tension between the two rules.
Cited 110 timesPublishedNederland Shipping Corp v. United States
18 F.4th 115 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 16, 2021
Following the two-step inquiry established more than a half-century ago in Kossick v. … Cir. 2015) (Section 1908(e) “clearly provides authority in the Coast Guard to simply hold the ship in port until legal proceedings are completed.”); see also Angelex Ltd. v.
Cited 4 timesPublished500 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 7, 1974
These findings are not clearly erroneous. *688 Krasnov v. … “The criterion for Fifth Amendment immunity remains not the ownership of property. . . . ”, Couch v.
Cited 33 timesPublished337 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2003
While some communications may be privileged - allowing, for instance, immunity from defamation actions - conduct is clearly susceptible to being punishable as abuse. See Brown v. Del. … Such a proposition is clearly not supportable.
Cited 180 timesPublishedMario Diana v. Williard Oliphant
441 F. App'x 76 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2011
“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The second question is whether the right at issue was “clearly established.” al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2080.
Cited 5 timesUnpublished508 F.2d 45 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 27, 1975
Immunity from Liability 17 The defendants urged the district court to dismiss Dr. Peterson's amended complaint for tort liability on the ground of official immunity. … This Court held that the overwhelming evidence established that Dr.
Cited 2 timesPublished18 F.3d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 11, 1994
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ................................................ 1077 A. Qualified Immunity of Defendant Justice ..................... 1077 B. Qualified Immunity of the Individual County Defendants ...... 1078 X. … 148 In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, the court considers whether the official's conduct "violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
Cited 0 timesPublished286 F.3d 153 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 5, 2002
It instead established a rebuttable presumption in favor of grand jury subpoenas. … See, e.g., Pansy, 23 F.3d at 789-91 (establishing test for modification of protective orders).
Cited 20 timesPublished274 F. App'x 183 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 11, 2008
Dreibelbis, Jr., appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. … Dreibelbis’s denial of access claim — that past police misconduct caused his PFA hearing to end poorly — is clearly of the latter type. In such situations, Heck v.
Cited 32 timesPublishedPatrick King v. Mansfield University of Pennsylvania
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 2024
violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Shegan is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established right to have a criminal complaint investigated. See Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2007).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2003
Courts have wrestled with the idea of affording opinion work product absolute immunity from discovery. … McGraw gave to Wood during a private consultation with Wood’s attorney clearly calls for attorney work product protection. In retaining Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedHelco, Inc. v. First National City Bank
470 F.2d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 27, 1972
He ultimately disposed of the case by holding that the defendant, by establishing a branch office in the islands and conducting a banking business there, had waived the immunity, if any, afforded by Section 94. … So our question in this respect is, did defendant by qualifying for the limited purpose of doing trust business in Illinois, intend to waive its right to be sued in a transaction which on its face does not purport to grow
Cited 22 timesPublished
Ask Donna