Case law

Marshall v. Hendricks

307 F.3d 36 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 11, 2002

Thus, such a holding would require a further expansion of Brady , possibly beyond what we would consider "clearly established law" even now, and certainly beyond "clearly established law" as of the time Marshall's conviction … Because we are examining to see whether the New Jersey Supreme Court's analysis "resulted in a decision" that was either "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law," we believe

Gerardo Dennis Patrickson Rodolfo Bermudez Arias Benigno Torres Hernandez Fernando Jimenez Arias Santos Leandros Herman Romero Aguilar Elias Espinoza Merelo Hooker Era Celestino Alirio Manuel Mendez Carlos Humberto Rivera, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Dole Food Company, Inc. Dole Fresh Fruit Company Dole Fresh Fruit International, Limited Pineapple Growers Associationof Hawaii Amvac Chemical Corporation Shell Oil Company Dow Chemical Company Occidental Chemical Corporation, Individually and as Successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Company Standard Fruit Co. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co. Standard Fruit Company De Costa Rica, S.A. Standard Fruit Company De Honduras, S.A. Chiquita Brands, Inc. Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Individually United Brands Company, Inc., Suc Chiquita Brands International, Inc. Maritrop Trading Corporation Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. Del Monte Fresh Produce Hawaii, Inc. Del Monte Fresh Produce Companyand Fresh Del Monte N v. V. Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd. Bromine Compounds Limited, Third-Party-Defendants-Appellees. Gerardo Dennis Patrickson Rodolfo Bermudez Arias Benigno Torres Hernandez Fernando Jimenez Arias Santos Leandros Herman Romero Aguilar Elias Espinoza Merelo Hooker Era Celestino Alirio Manuel Mendez Carlos Humberto Rivera, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Dole Food Company, Inc. Dole Fresh Fruit Company Dole Fresh Fruit International, Limited Pineapple Growers Associationof Hawaii Amvac Chemical Corporation Shell Oil Company Dow Chemical Company Occidental Chemical Corporation, Individually and as Successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Company Standard Fruit Co. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co. Standard Fruit Company De Costa Rica, S.A. Standard Fruit Company De Honduras, S.A. Chiquita Brands, Inc. Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Individually United Brands Company, Inc., Suc Chiquita Brands International, Inc. Maritrop Trading Corporation Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. Del Monte Fresh Produce Hawaii, Inc. Del Monte Fresh Produce Companyand Fresh Del Monte N v. and Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd. Bromine Compounds Limited, Third-Party-Defendants-Appellants

251 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 30, 2001

First, they argue that Gates did not consider whether the indirect ownership of stock qualified as an "other ownership interest" under section 1603(b)(2). … Sabbatino, 307 F.2d 845, 854 (2d Cir. 1962) (plaintiff must establish title as an element of his conversion claim, and title rests on the Cuban expropriation decree), rev'd on other grounds, Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 . 3 As

Cooper v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

548 F.3d 296 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 26, 2008

The subfactors here do not point clearly in one direction. Certain attributes of SEPTA under state law weigh against immunity. Under its enabling statute, SEPTA has (1) a separate corporate existence, 74 Pa. … This new chapter established the Public Transportation Trust Fund ("PTTF”), from which public transit entities throughout the state may apply for and receive funding. See id. § 1506.

Lang v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency

610 F. App'x 158 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 21, 2015

“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 … established and that, as a result, the individual Defendants (if found to be government employees) would be entitled to qualified immunity. 10

Kelly Fanti v. Richard Weinstock

629 F. App'x 325 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 9, 2015

turns on whether there was a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established. … As government officials, Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims for damages unless (1) the facts alleged show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established

Dreibelbis v. Young

351 F. App'x 711 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 29, 2009

as agents of the state court; and (5) did Defendants enjoy qualified immunity to the extent they acted in accord with the state judge’s directions? … Having found that Dreibelbis is unable to establish a violation of his federal rights, we need not reach the other issues raised in his appeal. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court. .

United States v. Paul Levine

658 F.2d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 1981

While the statutory provisions establish restrictions on the state’s ability to prosecute, they do not — like the constitutional guarantees— confer immunity from prosecution. … In the instant case, where there is no absolute immunity from prosecution but only a qualified relief linked to prosecutorial timeliness, there is even less reason for a statutory right to supercede the normal requirements

Kunda v. Muhlenberg College

621 F.2d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 1980

In considering whether Kunda established a prima facie case for tenure, the trial court found that she was qualified for tenure as well as promotion. … On review of the record we cannot say that the trial court’s finding that plaintiff was qualified for promotion to Assistant Professor was clearly erroneous.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Franklin and Marshall College

775 F.2d 110 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 29, 1985

Congress clearly intended that this goal be no less important in the academic setting than in industry. … The material pertaining to the Montbertrand tenure decision is clearly relevant to the investigation.

United States v. John Baird

218 F.3d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 26, 2000

Similarly, where a cooperation arrangement exists, but clearly limits the boundaries of immunity, courts are chary of expanding upon the parties’ clear intentions. See United States v. … Thus, the plea agreement was consistent with the December 9 letter of immunity.

In Re VistaCare Group, LLC

678 F.3d 218 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 4, 2012

Moreover, without a court approval requirement, trusteeship would become a “more irksome duty,” thereby discouraging qualified people from serving as trustees. Id. … The trustee, of course, will retain the right to raise immunities and defenses in state court. 13 At oral argument, CGL asserted that the immunity issue was never raised before the Bankruptcy Court and

Sanford v. Stiles

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2006

Qualified Immunity Because we find that no constitutional right was violated, we need not address the question whether Stiles was entitled to qualified immunity in the federal claim. See Saucier v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”). V.

In Re: Leon A. Kendall v.

712 F.3d 814 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

I write separately, however, to express my view that the contempt conviction should be reversed on the grounds of absolute judicial immunity. 1 It is well-established that absolute judicial immunity protects judges from civil … While the application of absolute judicial immunity in civil proceedings is well-established, the Supreme Court has noted in dicta that it has not recognized absolute judicial immunity from criminal liability.

United States v. Roy Hamilton

46 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 1995

The findings of fact to which the district court applies the Speedy Trial Act are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Id. I. … The seventy-day time period established by the Speedy Trial Act therefore began to run on May 13,1993. See Lattany, 982 F.2d at 871 (date of arraignment is excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations).

Pennsylvania Federation Of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc. v. Hess

297 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2002

federalism established by the Act. … In order to qualify for the matching funds program, states were required to set criteria to determine a minimum income that would qualify a family for funds, and to determine a payment level of how much the state would actually

Benn v. Universal Health System, Inc.

371 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 17, 2004

Cape Cod Hosp., 26 F.3d establish a §1983 claim. “The plain at 257-58; Harvey v. … that the remaining defendants qualify for immunity if they did not engage in “willful The MHPA gives broad immunity misconduct or gross negligence.

United States v. Rundle

506 F.2d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 26, 1974

The first form is qualified immunity. … Montgomery, however, because it was concerned with the immunity of high officials, never indicated the nature and extent of the 'qualified' immunity which is extended to low officials.

Fred Lowenschuss v. West Publishing Company

542 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 12, 1976

stated that he was making no finding as to the sequence of events, he intimated that Lowenschuss may have purchased the shares of A&P stock after learning of the opposition to the tender offer solely for the purpose of qualifying … While the facts of that case differ in several important particulars from the instant one, it establishes certain helpful principles.

James R. Bartholomew v. Frank Fischl and City of Allentown

782 F.2d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 7, 1986

While the concept of an official policy or custom was not clearly defined in Monell , the Supreme Court noted that such a policy or custom may be established either by a city’s lawmakers or “by those whose edicts or acts … The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ ruling that the city was protected by qualified immunity, and held that Owen was entitled to judgment against both the municipality and the individual defendants.

Walter Anderson v. Michael Dohman

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 2024

Qualified immunity “shields governmental officials from suit and from liability if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … The analysis of a qualified immunity claim is guided by a two-part test: (1) “whether the facts . . . show the violation of a legal right,” and (2) “whether that right was clearly established.” Id. at 227.