Case law

United States v. Butch

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

We review the District Court's decision to admit evidence under Rule 404(b) for an abuse of discr etion, which "may be reversed only when `clearly contrary to reason and not justified by the evidence'." United States v. … He argues that because, under the language of 28 C.F.R.S 1308.12(e), oxycodone acts like a depressant and is not specifically excepted or listed in another schedule, oxycodone qualifies as a Schedule II Depressant.

Secretary of Labor v. Compton

57 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 5, 1995

However, Fidelity clearly had, at the least, "authority respecting the management" of the Plan's assets. … By balancing the interests of each plan, they may be able to construct terms which are fair and equitable for both plans; if so, they may qualify for a section 408 exemption.

United States v. Alessandrello, Gaetano, in No. 79-2654. Appeal of Lacognata, Salvatore, in No. 79-2699

637 F.2d 131 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 21, 1980

The Second Circuit found that this absence violated Rule 43. 12 22 The facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable from those in Crutcher. … challenge is important because it helps the defendant select a jury by giving him "an opportunity beyond the minimum requirements of fair selection to express an arbitrary preference among jurors properly selected and fully qualified

Hassine v. Zimmerman

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

petitioner's due process rights as established in Doyle." … THE DOYLE VIOLATION The Supreme Court established in Doyle v.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

869 F.2d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 25, 1989

We do not hold that the mere assertion of unquantifiability immunizes the NRC from consideration of the issue under NEPA. … These vague references to remoteness cannot substitute for an agency's clearly articulated and documented finding that the risk is "remote and highly speculative."

Coleman-Fletcher v. Kaye

87 F.3d 1491 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

The office of county prosecutor in the State of New Jersey is a constitutionally established office. … supersede the county prosecutor's authority, it ultimately concluded that "the existence of this power of supersession does not bring the prosecutors so directly under the influence of the Governor that they automatically qualify

Javed v. Attorney General of the United States

376 F. App'x 227 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 19, 2010

The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish his or her refugee status. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(I). … The IJ clearly identified Javed’s testimony regarding the January 2006 incident and subsequent threats on his life as requiring corroboration.

Spain v. Gallegos

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 16, 1994

Spain, a white female, alleges that Nelson and Butler, male African-Americans, have a history of passing over her for promotions to GM-13 and GM-14 level positions in favor of allegedly lesser qualified male African-American … The court quite clearly explained that this would be the result with respect to the issues on which the court determined that Spain could proceed. App. at 45-46.

The Pitt News v. Fisher

215 F.3d 354 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2000

Enforcement of Act 199 clearly led The Pitt News' advertisers to cancel their contracts with the student newspaper. … this case.11 Because we must balance the effect of the challenged statute on third parties against the importance of the prudential rule prohibiting third party standing, we therefore conclude that The Pitt News does not qualify

Gorman v. Twnshp Manalapan

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

The record clearly establishes that the police offered Groman medical assistance which he consistently and obstinately rejected. Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Groman's medical needs. … Nonetheless, the Court's state action decisions do create some clearly distinguishable approaches to the state action issue. Henry C.

Foulk v. Donjon Marine Co Inc

144 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 11, 1998

The question then is whether Foulk qualifies as a Jones Act "seaman" when his durational connection to the Farrell 256 was only 10 days, i.e,. whether 10 days is sufficient for "substantial duration." … Thus, these rulings have established the strictest standard among the federal courts that have addressed this issue.

United States v. Dispoz O Plastics

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 1999

Consequently, the prosecution's comment did not qualify as an invited response. … The witnesses' testimony was clearly central to the government's case. Without it, the prosecution could not establish that there was an agreement to fix prices.

In Re: LifeUSA Holding, Inc.

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

A finding is "clearly erroneous when the r eviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. … Because common questions (commonality) must be established before pr edominance can be found, we turn to that element.

In Re: TMI

67 F.3d 1103 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 17, 1995

The court held that each plaintiff must prove individual exposure to radiation in order to establish causation, but not to establish a breach of the duty of care. Id. at 30-31. … Defendants contend that plaintiffs must establish that they were located in areas exposed to radiation in excess of that allowed under §§ 20.105 and/or 20.106 to establish a breach of duty.

Newfound Management Corp. v. Lewis

131 F.3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 12, 1997

To qualify, the relevant order must first be a final judgment in the sense that it ultimately disposes of an individual claim brought as part of a multiple claim action. Id. at 1153. … It applied appropriate legal principles and its findings are not clearly erroneous. We will affirm the judgment of the district court.

Patriot Party Alghny v. Alghny Cty Dept

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 1999

An abuse of discretion may be found when "the district court's decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact." International Union, UAW v. … Indeed, in describing the California statute, the Court in Storer observed that, apart from the fact that an independent candidate needed to "qualify for the ballot by demonstrating substantial public support" in some other

United States v. Fields

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 3, 1994

(a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels. … The evidence also established that, after this delivery was made, the defendant criticized the young man or boy for being too open in his manner of handing over the package.

Allegheny International, Inc. v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.

40 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 4, 1994

The second clause, however, qualifies the first by excepting certain obligations under the November 26, 1980 agreement. … The district court adhered to this earlier decision because it concluded that the decision was not "clearly erroneous." Id. at 24.

Sondra Dennison v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 12, 2023

Dennison must establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination. Id. at 802. … We assume without deciding that Dennison has established a prima facie case of discrimination.

United States v. Dawan McBride

376 F. App'x 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 14, 2010

(PSR ¶¶ 30, 33, 34.) 3 Under the ACCA, convictions qualify an offender for ACC status based on the maximum term prescribed by the statute under which the offender was previously sentenced. … “We review credibility determinations, like other factual findings, under a clearly erroneous standard.” Grider v.