Navigation



10000 search results for query court of appeals for the third circuit


All

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 174 F.3d 95 (1999)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued May 4, 1998.Reargued Oct. 5, 1998.Decided March 18, 1999.As amended May 11, 1999. Under these circumstances, both Supreme Court and Third Circuit authority require that we vacate the judgment against the ACPD. In light of these cases, as well as the Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedents discussed in the text, I believe the majority's reliance on the sporadic

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 149 F.3d 227 (1998)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued June 4, 1998.Decided July 23, 1998. Normand F. Pizza (Argued), Nyda S. OPINION OF THE COURT NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. 1 This appeal requires us to interpret for the first time 31 U.S.C. § 3730 interests of third parties.")

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 143 F.3d 139 (1998)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Nov. 4, 1997.Decided April 30, 1998. John M. Elliott, Timothy T. See Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedures 9.1 12 The district court's calculations based on the equivalent of two Becker, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, assumed Chief Judge status on February 1, 1998 1 I am not sure

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 151 F.3d 1024 (1998)

Castle Associates Limited Partnership, a New Jerseylimited partnership, John Does, 1 Through 10 NOS. 97-5106, 97-5142, 97-5627 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 124 F.3d 499 (1997)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued June 2, 1997.Decided Aug. 26, 1997. Dawn Riley Courtney (argued), Kevin J. The trial court found that the professors did indeed have contracts of lifetime employment (based on the 1960's "appointment for life" language), but the I therefore concur in his opinion and in the judgment of the court. 59 SCIRICA, Circuit Judge, concurring. 60

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 101 F.3d 690 (1996)

Sperry Univac, f/k/a SperryCorporation, Unisys Corporation, John Does, 1 through 10,Pertec Computer NOS. 95-5781, 96-5070, 96-5095 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 68 F.3d 1540 (1995)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Aug. 25, 1995.Decided Oct. 24, 1995.Sur Petition for Rehearing Dec. 27, 1995. In Chen, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that "mere presence in the territorial waters of the United States does not constitute an entry C. 35 The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has defined the third element of the entry test, freedom from official restraint, as

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 49 F.3d 945 (1995)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Nov. 3, 1994.Decided March 6, 1995.Sur Petition for Rehearing April 3, 1995. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the grant of qualified immunity to the two defendant officers with respect to the claim of In a recent opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit observed that while the circuits "have struggled to decide how long after a decision state

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 43 F.3d 823 (1995)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. (argued), Newtown Square, PA, for appellee. Before STAPLETON, GARTH and PRATT,* Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT GEORGE C. circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petitions for rehearing are denied.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 34 F.3d 163 (1994)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. denial of his second and third motions for new trial. from the Seventh Circuit offers insight into the issue of measuring damages for sentencing purposes in a fraud case.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 17 F.3d 660 (1994)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Dec. 14, 1993.Decided March 3, 1994.Sur Petition For Rehearing April 14, 1994. 17 F.3d 660 having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 990 F.2d 1413 (1993)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued March 9, 1993.Decided April 15, 1993.Sur Petition for Rehearing May 11, 1993. For example, it noted that the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had excepted from section 206(d)(1)'s reach liabilities arising from the employee's However, unlike the Solmsen court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, predicted that "[b]ased upon Guidry's strict application of

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 985 F.2d 716 (1993)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Nov. 19, 1992.Decided Feb. 2, 1993. Michael Chertoff, U.S. Atty., Leslie F. Before: MANSMANN and HUTCHINSON, Circuit Judges, and BARTLE, District Judge.* OPINION OF THE COURT MANSMANN, Circuit Judge. , the district court performed a minimal proportionality analysis by reiterating the standard the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit set forth in

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 971 F.2d 999 (1992)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued May 19, 1992.Decided July 27, 1992. Gregory K. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit case of Hummell v. S.E. See Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedures § 9.1, providing that the holding of a panel in a reported opinion is binding on subsequent panels

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 966 F.2d 786 (1992)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Before: BECKER, MANSMANN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.OPINION OF THE COURT BECKER, Circuit Judge. 1 These consolidated appeals of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 952 F.2d 742 (1991)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Sept. 30, 1991.Decided Dec. 30, 1991. Robert J. Del Tufo, Atty. OPINION OF THE COURT BECKER, Circuit Judge. Cross-appeals to this court followed, the Chief Justice essentially reiterating his positions before the district court, and the County arguing that the

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 940 F.2d 832 (1991)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Feb. 7, 1991.Decided July 26, 1991. John R. has been fashioned by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Rothner v.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 918 F.2d 1121 (1990)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Aug. 30, 1990.Decided Nov. 14, 1990. John C. Phillips, Jr. ., for appellant, The Celotex Corp. Before HUTCHINSON, NYGAARD and ROSENN, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT ROSENN, Circuit Judge. 1 These consolidated appeals in diversity cases present a novel issue of delicacy

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 912 F.2d 672 (1990)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Sec. 1101 et seq.) brought this action for declaratory judgment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to determine whether the liability for third party necessarily eliminate a source of insurance funds for the third party claimants injured by a Metro taxicab.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 908 F.2d 961 (1990)

., Jr.)v.City of Philadelphia, Hawrylak (Michael), Van (David),O'Neill (Edward), Police Officer Mc Nichol, Twardy (George),De Meo (Sal), Bureau of Driver Licensing, Pavelick (Thomas),Doe (John, Jane), 1 to 20 Inclusive NOS. 89-1934, 90-1230, 90-1231, 90-1232 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 905 F.2d 702 (1990)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Jan. 22, 1990.Decided June 18, 1990. R. Steven Shisler (argued), Bernard L. OPINION OF THE COURT SLOVITER, Circuit Judge. I. When the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and awarded delay damages, it gave the plaintiffs all they were seeking in the appeals

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 903 F.2d 186 (1990)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued July 12, 1989.Decided May 9, 1990. J. Dennis Faucher (argued), Michael R. The Fifth Circuit agrees. No Third Circuit case of which we are aware has upheld a district court's excuse of the requirement.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 896 F.2d 723 (1990)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Sept. 27, 1989.Decided Feb. 7, 1990. Randall J. ., for appellee, Joseph Rego. Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STAPLETON and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT A. 7 The district court said of the draft instructions: "I don't expect to see this up in the Circuit ...

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 883 F.2d 1194 (1989)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Ed. 2d 252 (1977), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that if there is some doubt "whether the jury may have included back pay in calculating We choose to follow the direction the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits have taken, and refuse to speculate as to the bases for the two

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 882 F.2d 791 (1989)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued April 25, 1989.Decided Aug. 15, 1989. Charles W. Bowser (argued) and James P. OPINION OF THE COURT STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: I. 1 On October 15, 1987, the Philadelphia Electric Company ("PECO") terminated 4 The third and final group consists of residential customers applying for reconnection of electric service previously terminated for nonpayment

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 874 F.2d 156 (1989)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued March 28, 1989.Decided May 8, 1989.Rehearing Denied June 8, 1989. This court consolidated the three appeals and entertained them on an expedited basis. The peculiar nature of this claim also provides another ground for subject matter jurisdiction over the appeals from the first injunction.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 869 F.2d 719 (1989)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had held that the rules were arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with NEPA, because 12 N.R.C. 609 (1980), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, People Against Nuclear Energy v.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 857 F.2d 137 (1988)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Ed. 2d 752 (1978), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the government need not allege evidence showing a causal relation The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed and vacated his conviction. The Supreme Court reversed.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 844 F.2d 1007 (1988)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued Dec. 7, 1987.Decided March 31, 1988. Rosalie Simmonds-Ballentine Sol. Before GIBBONS, Chief Judge, and STAPLETON, and MANSMANN, Circuit Judges.OPINION OF THE COURT STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: 1 The On appeal, this court, employing the narrow scope of review applicable in appeals from the issuance of a preliminary injunction, affirmed the decision

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 810 F.2d 1164 (1987)

Council 88, American Federation of State,County, and Mun. Employees AFL-CIO 86-1337 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 1/14/87 E.D.Pa., Kelly, J., 638 F.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 806 F.2d 425 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. OPINION OF THE COURT ALDISERT, Chief Judge. 1 We have cross appeals emanating from a prosecution for selling protected wildlife court, and elect not to follow the approach of the Sixth Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 797 F.2d 1197 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. See Internal Operating Procedures of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, chapter 8, section C. holding of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in McMahon v.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 789 F.2d 196 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Before HUNTER and MANSMANN, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK,* District Judge.OPINION OF THE COURT JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge: I. The Second Circuit recently considered the constitutionality of Rule 23(b) at length in United States v.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 789 F.2d 996 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Frustrated by the seemingly intractable problems inherent in the present situation, a thoughtful minority of the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit involves common questions. 92 We find ourselves in substantial agreement with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 788 F.2d 196 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Feb. 10, 1986.Decided April 22, 1986. John R. OPINION OF THE COURT STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: 1 Shirley A. Lojeski brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Internal Revenue Service ("IRS")

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 781 F.2d 334 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. II. 8 The appeals and cross-appeals originated in five separate district court cases that were consolidated for purposes of disposition ; dismissed the second case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and in the third, fourth and fifth actions ruled for the defendants on the liability

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 778 F.2d 985 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Sept. 9, 1985.Submitted on Additional BriefingNov. 4, 1985. This court has jurisdiction of their appeals under 28 U.S.C. Court of Appeals [in Dionisio and Mara ] had held that the government must first make a showing of need for the exemplars which was 'reasonable' albeit

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 782 F.2d 1032 (1986)

782 F.2d 1032 U.S.v.One 1982 Datsun 200 SX Vin: JN1RS06S9CU609811 85-3257 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 1/21/86

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 774 F.2d 587 (1985)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued June 18, 1985.Decided Oct. 10, 1985. Theodore M. *OPINION OF THE COURT GIBBONS, Circuit Judge: 1 This is an appeal from a final summary judgment in consolidated actions challenging Sills, 289 A.2d 257, 258-59, 60 N.J. 342, 345 (1972), when the court struck down a grandfather clause that protected about one third of all liquor wholesalers

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 751 F.2d 562 (1984)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued May 21, 1984.Decided Dec. 13, 1984. Walter E. .* OPINION OF THE COURT GIBBONS, Circuit Judge: 1 Eleven law firms appeal from an order allowing fees out of a fund resulting This panel is bound by the law of the circuit announced in Lindy II. Id.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 755 F.2d 918 (1984)

Workersof America (UAW), Locals 300 and 669 84-5254 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 12/4/84 D.N.J., Debevoise

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 755 F.2d 920 (1984)

., Aerospace and Agr.Implement Workers of America (UAW) and UAW Locals 300 and 669v.Kunz 84-5254 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 741 F.2d 598 (1984)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Before ADAMS, SLOVITER, Circuit Judges, and TEITELBAUM, District Judge.* OPINION OF THE COURT ADAMS, Circuit Judge. 1 court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 89 SLOVITER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. 90 I agree

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 728 F.2d 167 (1984)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Before GIBBONS and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL, District Judge.* OPINION OF THE COURT GIBBONS, Circuit Judge: 1 Abraham cross-appeals from the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his Elrod claims and on claims seeking damages for intentional

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 734 F.2d 133 (1984)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Before ALDISERT and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges, and LATCHUM, District Judge.* OPINION OF THE COURT ALDISERT, Circuit Judge. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 733 F.2d 1059 (1984)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Sept. 12, 1983.Decided April 30, 1984.As Amended May 29, 1984. Steven B. ., for appellee Publicker Industries, Inc. Before WEIS, HIGGINBOTHAM and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT A. the suit from which these appeals arise.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 715 F.2d 822 (1983)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. It was rejected in analogous circumstances by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. There, we agreed with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that " 'a series of agreements that under pre-RICO law would constitute multiple conspiracies

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit , 720 F.2d 666 (1983)

720 F.2d 666 Secretary of Labor, U. S. Dept. of Laborv.United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO-CLC (Dist. 15) (Dist. 31) 82-5759 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit 8/10/

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 699 F.2d 657 (1983)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. These appeals were consolidated and both are now before us. As to Behring's appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court. of Columbia Circuit the previous year.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 682 F.2d 419 (1982)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued April 28, 1982.Decided June 22, 1982. Daniel M. Dibble (argued), C. OPINION OF THE COURT WEIS, Circuit Judge. 1 In this appeal, two pesticide manufacturers contend that the Federal Insecticide United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedures Ch. VIIIC (1980).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 174 F.3d 95 (1999)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued May 4, 1998.Reargued Oct. 5, 1998.Decided March 18, 1999.As amended May 11, 1999. Under these circumstances, both Supreme Court and Third Circuit authority require that we vacate the judgment against the ACPD. In light of these cases, as well as the Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedents discussed in the text, I believe the majority's reliance on the sporadic

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 149 F.3d 227 (1998)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued June 4, 1998.Decided July 23, 1998. Normand F. Pizza (Argued), Nyda S. OPINION OF THE COURT NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. 1 This appeal requires us to interpret for the first time 31 U.S.C. § 3730 interests of third parties.")

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 143 F.3d 139 (1998)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Nov. 4, 1997.Decided April 30, 1998. John M. Elliott, Timothy T. See Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedures 9.1 12 The district court's calculations based on the equivalent of two Becker, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, assumed Chief Judge status on February 1, 1998 1 I am not sure

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 151 F.3d 1024 (1998)

Castle Associates Limited Partnership, a New Jerseylimited partnership, John Does, 1 Through 10 NOS. 97-5106, 97-5142, 97-5627 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 124 F.3d 499 (1997)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued June 2, 1997.Decided Aug. 26, 1997. Dawn Riley Courtney (argued), Kevin J. The trial court found that the professors did indeed have contracts of lifetime employment (based on the 1960's "appointment for life" language), but the I therefore concur in his opinion and in the judgment of the court. 59 SCIRICA, Circuit Judge, concurring. 60

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 101 F.3d 690 (1996)

Sperry Univac, f/k/a SperryCorporation, Unisys Corporation, John Does, 1 through 10,Pertec Computer NOS. 95-5781, 96-5070, 96-5095 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 68 F.3d 1540 (1995)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Aug. 25, 1995.Decided Oct. 24, 1995.Sur Petition for Rehearing Dec. 27, 1995. In Chen, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that "mere presence in the territorial waters of the United States does not constitute an entry C. 35 The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has defined the third element of the entry test, freedom from official restraint, as

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 49 F.3d 945 (1995)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Nov. 3, 1994.Decided March 6, 1995.Sur Petition for Rehearing April 3, 1995. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the grant of qualified immunity to the two defendant officers with respect to the claim of In a recent opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit observed that while the circuits "have struggled to decide how long after a decision state

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 43 F.3d 823 (1995)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. (argued), Newtown Square, PA, for appellee. Before STAPLETON, GARTH and PRATT,* Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT GEORGE C. circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petitions for rehearing are denied.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 34 F.3d 163 (1994)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. denial of his second and third motions for new trial. from the Seventh Circuit offers insight into the issue of measuring damages for sentencing purposes in a fraud case.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 17 F.3d 660 (1994)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Dec. 14, 1993.Decided March 3, 1994.Sur Petition For Rehearing April 14, 1994. 17 F.3d 660 having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 990 F.2d 1413 (1993)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued March 9, 1993.Decided April 15, 1993.Sur Petition for Rehearing May 11, 1993. For example, it noted that the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had excepted from section 206(d)(1)'s reach liabilities arising from the employee's However, unlike the Solmsen court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, predicted that "[b]ased upon Guidry's strict application of

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 985 F.2d 716 (1993)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Nov. 19, 1992.Decided Feb. 2, 1993. Michael Chertoff, U.S. Atty., Leslie F. Before: MANSMANN and HUTCHINSON, Circuit Judges, and BARTLE, District Judge.* OPINION OF THE COURT MANSMANN, Circuit Judge. , the district court performed a minimal proportionality analysis by reiterating the standard the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit set forth in

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 971 F.2d 999 (1992)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued May 19, 1992.Decided July 27, 1992. Gregory K. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit case of Hummell v. S.E. See Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedures § 9.1, providing that the holding of a panel in a reported opinion is binding on subsequent panels

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 966 F.2d 786 (1992)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Before: BECKER, MANSMANN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.OPINION OF THE COURT BECKER, Circuit Judge. 1 These consolidated appeals of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 952 F.2d 742 (1991)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Sept. 30, 1991.Decided Dec. 30, 1991. Robert J. Del Tufo, Atty. OPINION OF THE COURT BECKER, Circuit Judge. Cross-appeals to this court followed, the Chief Justice essentially reiterating his positions before the district court, and the County arguing that the

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 940 F.2d 832 (1991)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Feb. 7, 1991.Decided July 26, 1991. John R. has been fashioned by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Rothner v.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 918 F.2d 1121 (1990)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Aug. 30, 1990.Decided Nov. 14, 1990. John C. Phillips, Jr. ., for appellant, The Celotex Corp. Before HUTCHINSON, NYGAARD and ROSENN, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT ROSENN, Circuit Judge. 1 These consolidated appeals in diversity cases present a novel issue of delicacy

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 912 F.2d 672 (1990)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Sec. 1101 et seq.) brought this action for declaratory judgment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to determine whether the liability for third party necessarily eliminate a source of insurance funds for the third party claimants injured by a Metro taxicab.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 908 F.2d 961 (1990)

., Jr.)v.City of Philadelphia, Hawrylak (Michael), Van (David),O'Neill (Edward), Police Officer Mc Nichol, Twardy (George),De Meo (Sal), Bureau of Driver Licensing, Pavelick (Thomas),Doe (John, Jane), 1 to 20 Inclusive NOS. 89-1934, 90-1230, 90-1231, 90-1232 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 905 F.2d 702 (1990)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Jan. 22, 1990.Decided June 18, 1990. R. Steven Shisler (argued), Bernard L. OPINION OF THE COURT SLOVITER, Circuit Judge. I. When the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and awarded delay damages, it gave the plaintiffs all they were seeking in the appeals

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 903 F.2d 186 (1990)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued July 12, 1989.Decided May 9, 1990. J. Dennis Faucher (argued), Michael R. The Fifth Circuit agrees. No Third Circuit case of which we are aware has upheld a district court's excuse of the requirement.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 896 F.2d 723 (1990)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Sept. 27, 1989.Decided Feb. 7, 1990. Randall J. ., for appellee, Joseph Rego. Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STAPLETON and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT A. 7 The district court said of the draft instructions: "I don't expect to see this up in the Circuit ...

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 883 F.2d 1194 (1989)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Ed. 2d 252 (1977), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that if there is some doubt "whether the jury may have included back pay in calculating We choose to follow the direction the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits have taken, and refuse to speculate as to the bases for the two

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 882 F.2d 791 (1989)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued April 25, 1989.Decided Aug. 15, 1989. Charles W. Bowser (argued) and James P. OPINION OF THE COURT STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: I. 1 On October 15, 1987, the Philadelphia Electric Company ("PECO") terminated 4 The third and final group consists of residential customers applying for reconnection of electric service previously terminated for nonpayment

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 874 F.2d 156 (1989)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued March 28, 1989.Decided May 8, 1989.Rehearing Denied June 8, 1989. This court consolidated the three appeals and entertained them on an expedited basis. The peculiar nature of this claim also provides another ground for subject matter jurisdiction over the appeals from the first injunction.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 869 F.2d 719 (1989)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had held that the rules were arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with NEPA, because 12 N.R.C. 609 (1980), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, People Against Nuclear Energy v.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 857 F.2d 137 (1988)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Ed. 2d 752 (1978), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the government need not allege evidence showing a causal relation The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed and vacated his conviction. The Supreme Court reversed.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 844 F.2d 1007 (1988)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued Dec. 7, 1987.Decided March 31, 1988. Rosalie Simmonds-Ballentine Sol. Before GIBBONS, Chief Judge, and STAPLETON, and MANSMANN, Circuit Judges.OPINION OF THE COURT STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: 1 The On appeal, this court, employing the narrow scope of review applicable in appeals from the issuance of a preliminary injunction, affirmed the decision

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 810 F.2d 1164 (1987)

Council 88, American Federation of State,County, and Mun. Employees AFL-CIO 86-1337 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 1/14/87 E.D.Pa., Kelly, J., 638 F.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 806 F.2d 425 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. OPINION OF THE COURT ALDISERT, Chief Judge. 1 We have cross appeals emanating from a prosecution for selling protected wildlife court, and elect not to follow the approach of the Sixth Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 797 F.2d 1197 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. See Internal Operating Procedures of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, chapter 8, section C. holding of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in McMahon v.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 789 F.2d 196 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Before HUNTER and MANSMANN, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK,* District Judge.OPINION OF THE COURT JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge: I. The Second Circuit recently considered the constitutionality of Rule 23(b) at length in United States v.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 789 F.2d 996 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Frustrated by the seemingly intractable problems inherent in the present situation, a thoughtful minority of the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit involves common questions. 92 We find ourselves in substantial agreement with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 788 F.2d 196 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Feb. 10, 1986.Decided April 22, 1986. John R. OPINION OF THE COURT STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: 1 Shirley A. Lojeski brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Internal Revenue Service ("IRS")

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 781 F.2d 334 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. II. 8 The appeals and cross-appeals originated in five separate district court cases that were consolidated for purposes of disposition ; dismissed the second case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and in the third, fourth and fifth actions ruled for the defendants on the liability

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 778 F.2d 985 (1986)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Sept. 9, 1985.Submitted on Additional BriefingNov. 4, 1985. This court has jurisdiction of their appeals under 28 U.S.C. Court of Appeals [in Dionisio and Mara ] had held that the government must first make a showing of need for the exemplars which was 'reasonable' albeit

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 782 F.2d 1032 (1986)

782 F.2d 1032 U.S.v.One 1982 Datsun 200 SX Vin: JN1RS06S9CU609811 85-3257 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 1/21/86

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 774 F.2d 587 (1985)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued June 18, 1985.Decided Oct. 10, 1985. Theodore M. *OPINION OF THE COURT GIBBONS, Circuit Judge: 1 This is an appeal from a final summary judgment in consolidated actions challenging Sills, 289 A.2d 257, 258-59, 60 N.J. 342, 345 (1972), when the court struck down a grandfather clause that protected about one third of all liquor wholesalers

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 751 F.2d 562 (1984)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued May 21, 1984.Decided Dec. 13, 1984. Walter E. .* OPINION OF THE COURT GIBBONS, Circuit Judge: 1 Eleven law firms appeal from an order allowing fees out of a fund resulting This panel is bound by the law of the circuit announced in Lindy II. Id.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 755 F.2d 918 (1984)

Workersof America (UAW), Locals 300 and 669 84-5254 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 12/4/84 D.N.J., Debevoise

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 755 F.2d 920 (1984)

., Aerospace and Agr.Implement Workers of America (UAW) and UAW Locals 300 and 669v.Kunz 84-5254 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 741 F.2d 598 (1984)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Before ADAMS, SLOVITER, Circuit Judges, and TEITELBAUM, District Judge.* OPINION OF THE COURT ADAMS, Circuit Judge. 1 court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 89 SLOVITER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. 90 I agree

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 728 F.2d 167 (1984)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Before GIBBONS and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL, District Judge.* OPINION OF THE COURT GIBBONS, Circuit Judge: 1 Abraham cross-appeals from the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his Elrod claims and on claims seeking damages for intentional

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 734 F.2d 133 (1984)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Before ALDISERT and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges, and LATCHUM, District Judge.* OPINION OF THE COURT ALDISERT, Circuit Judge. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 733 F.2d 1059 (1984)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued Sept. 12, 1983.Decided April 30, 1984.As Amended May 29, 1984. Steven B. ., for appellee Publicker Industries, Inc. Before WEIS, HIGGINBOTHAM and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT A. the suit from which these appeals arise.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 715 F.2d 822 (1983)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. It was rejected in analogous circumstances by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. There, we agreed with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that " 'a series of agreements that under pre-RICO law would constitute multiple conspiracies

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit , 720 F.2d 666 (1983)

720 F.2d 666 Secretary of Labor, U. S. Dept. of Laborv.United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO-CLC (Dist. 15) (Dist. 31) 82-5759 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit 8/10/

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 699 F.2d 657 (1983)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. These appeals were consolidated and both are now before us. As to Behring's appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court. of Columbia Circuit the previous year.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit , 682 F.2d 419 (1982)

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued April 28, 1982.Decided June 22, 1982. Daniel M. Dibble (argued), C. OPINION OF THE COURT WEIS, Circuit Judge. 1 In this appeal, two pesticide manufacturers contend that the Federal Insecticide United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedures Ch. VIIIC (1980).