Case law

Riley v. Taylor

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

With respect to Nichols, Liguori remembered clearly that "Mr. … Evidence that may be used to impeach may qualify as Brady material. See Kyles v.

Sperling v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.

24 F.3d 463 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 2, 1994

We there hold qualified plaintiffs may join a representative action for age discrimination a the time period for their individual actions has lapsed when the representative pla have filed a complaint within the statute … referred the matter to a Special Ma The Special Master recommended granting Sperling's motion to join or incorporate in opt-in class the 102 persons who filed consents in accordance with the procedure th district court established

Bundens v. J.E. Brenneman Co.

46 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 26, 1995

among all of the defendants in the district court litigation dismissed with prejudice all of the Bundens' claims.7 It also fixed the respective amount that each defendant would contribute to the $1,000,000 settlement established … Thus, the Court held in order to qualify for coverage under the Jones Act, the employee must: (1) have an "employment- related connection to a vessel in navigation"; and (2) "`contribut[e] to the function of the vessel

Keystone Chapter, Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Foley

37 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 1994

.10 They claimed their participation in public works projects was impeded because their collective bargaining agreements, which include centrally administered benefits plans for workers in several states, would not qualify … In applying the Prevailing Wage Act, Pennsylvania is clearly acting with an "interest in setting policy," not as a proprietor. Id. at 1197.

United States v. Universal Rehab

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 11, 1999

The only evidence that clearly concerns pre- mailing events is the Gold testimony. This testimony, however, only establishes pressure to bill, not pressure to bill falsely. … Clearly, the evidence against Lukesh is more substantial than that against Horvath.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

563 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 1977

A careful analysis of Hayden and its progeny demonstrates that in order to qualify under this exception the government must show that before the police entered a premise to arrest a suspect: (1) there existed "not merely … This evidence fails to establish clear probable cause and therefore I conclude that, on this basis alone, the hot pursuit doctrine is inapplicable to this case. 49 B.

CJ Hughes Construction Co Inc v. EQM Gathering OPCO LLC

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 2024

EQM points to no evidence in the record establishing that it carried its burden as to the accrual date of either claim, and the evidence supports the jury’s findings. … “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” McLaughlin v.

CJ Hughes Construction Co Inc v. EQM Gathering OPCO LLC

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 2024

EQM points to no evidence in the record establishing that it carried its burden as to the accrual date of either claim, and the evidence supports the jury’s findings. … “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” McLaughlin v.

ACLU v. Reno

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 2000

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that there is "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this [cyberspace] medium." … As the Supreme Court has clearly stated, "the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).

C.K. v. New Jersey Department of Health & Human Services

92 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 9, 1996

If, for example, a caregiver does not qualify for additional AFDC benefits himself, and only the affected child lives with the caregiver, the otherwise "eligible" family of two would receive no AFDC money at all in apparent … Although the Secretary could have cited each relevant subsection of section 602(a) specifically in the waiver authority document, such specificity was not necessary: the waiver provisions clearly indicate the Secretary's

Taylor v. Pathmark

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 1999

Ctr., 142 F.3d 138, 143 n.4 (3d Cir. 1998) (en banc), although the employer's state of mind is clearly relevant to the appropriate remedies. … But that question goes to a totally different element of the plaintiff 's case, which is whether the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job.

United States v. Sriyuth

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1996

In addition, "[w]hen the evidence of another crime is necessary to establish an element of the offense being tried, there is no `other crime.'" United States v. Blyden, 964 F.2d 1375, 1378 (3d Cir. 1992). … These findings are not clearly erroneous. The record supports the denial of the motion because Sriyuth waived his rights freely and deliberately, and was not coerced into relinquishing them.

Philadelphia School District v. Robert Kirsch

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 5, 2018

Rail Corp., 297 F.3d 242, 246 (3d Cir. 2002)). 20 “(1) they are handicapped or disabled as defined under the statutes; (2) they are otherwise qualified to participate in the … “An abuse of discretion occurs when a 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.”

Spellman v. Meridian Bank

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

While instructive, the legislative history does not clearly establish the intended scope of "interest" in § 85, so we will consider the section's purpose. … Section 85 establishes the rates of interest a national bank can charge its customers.

Ragan v. Tri-County Excavating, Inc.

62 F.3d 501 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 1995

The fact that the claimant under the bond happens to be an ERISA fund is not the kind of “critical factor in establishing liability” that prompted preemption in Ingersoll-Rand. … Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp., 818 F.Supp. 623, 629 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (rejecting the reasoning of the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits and holding that a surety qualified as an employer under ERISA).

United States v. Tyler

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 11, 2002

Arnold had established a limited exception to the offense-specific rule where two prosecutions are "closely related." … Provided an out-of-court statement qualifies under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the Confrontation Clause does not require the proponent of the statement to prove the declarant is unavailable. United States v.

United States v. Bertoli

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 28, 1994

In reviewing findings of fact, we employ the clearly erroneous standard of review. … The guideline provides a "fine table" which establishes a minimum and maximum fine based on the defendant's offense level.

United States v. Williams

124 F.3d 411 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1997

However, the rights asserted by the defendants here do not qualify for strict scrutiny. As noted, the defendants claim that 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. S 5514 affects their "right to hold specific private employment." … It clearly does not. "It is a general rule that federal district courts will decide evidence questions in federal criminal cases on the basis of federal, rather than state, law." United States v.

Christ's Bride v. SEPTA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 25, 1998

It clearly does not constitute a "traditional" public forum, archetypal examples of which include streets and parks. … Thus, the nature of the forum suggests, but by no means establishes, see Lehman v.

Jacob Blinder & Sons, Inc. v. Gerber Products Co.

166 F.3d 112 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 12, 1999

This evidence is clearly as consistent with normal business conduct as it is with some alleged conspiracy between Heinz and Beech-Nut." Id. at 33-34. We agree. … Market realities also clearly controvert the plaintiffs' contention.