Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
JA
Joseph A. Greenaway jr
Judge, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Born 1957 · London
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Willing to revisit precedentStrong stare decisis
In [6], the opinion explicitly follows the Third Circuit's remand instructions and applies Supreme Court and circuit precedents on seizure and consent without questioning their validity. United States v. Crandell ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
Opinions in [3] and [6] deny government motions to dismiss and suppress evidence, respectively, enforcing constitutional limits on immigration and police actions. Kestelboym v. Chertoff ↗ United States v. Crandell ↗
This case involves a citizen suit brought by environmental organizations against PPG Industries under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), alleging that the company's past operations at a chrome production facility in Jersey City contributed to hexavalent chromium contamination that may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. The defendant moved for summary judgment, abstention, or a stay, primarily arguing that a prior state court Consent Judgment between PPG and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection resolved the issues and barred the federal claims. The court denied the motion in full. It reasoned that the Consent Judgment did not constitute a statutory bar to the RCRA citizen suit under 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b)(2)(C), that principles of full faith and credit and res judicata did not apply due to jurisdictional requirements, and that abstention was not warranted on the facts presented.
In United States v. Crandell, the defendant moved to suppress a handgun recovered during a police stop and frisk in a housing project, initiated by an anonymous tip describing a man matching his appearance carrying a weapon. The court determined that Crandell was seized under the Fourth Amendment when officers approached, stopped him, and surrounded him while stating their intent to conduct a pat-down. Because the anonymous tip did not provide reasonable suspicion and the encounter was not consensual, the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, tainting the recovered evidence as its fruit and requiring suppression.
This case involves an employment retaliation claim brought by plaintiff Douglas Palmer against his former employer UMDNJ and supervisor Dr. Esrig under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act, along with related state common-law claims for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference. Plaintiff alleged he faced retaliation, including negative references to a prospective employer, after reporting improper medical billing practices. The federal district court addressed a motion to remand the case to New Jersey Superior Court after removal. The court granted the remand motion and sua sponte remanded the entire action, holding that the well-pleaded complaint rule precluded federal-question jurisdiction because the state-law claims did not present a substantial federal issue and counterclaims could not create removal jurisdiction.
The case concerned a commercial dispute in which Petri Paint ordered SKINO #2, an anti-skinning agent, from OMG Americas but received a mislabeled drum containing a different calcium dryer product instead. Petri used the incorrect chemical in its polyurethane manufacturing process, leading to defective products, customer complaints, and claimed damages including lost reputation and business. Petri sued OMG on claims including strict liability, breach of warranties, negligence, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On OMG's motion for summary judgment to limit remedies based on its invoice terms and conditions, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after reviewing the formation of the sales contract, the conspicuousness of any limitations, and relevant UCC provisions on warranty and damages.
The case involves Vincent Campanello, a contract employee assigned to the Port Authority, who was arrested and charged in 2005 with theft and receipt of stolen property after retaining emergency equipment he had obtained for post-September 11 site visits; the charges were subsequently dismissed in municipal courts due to prosecutorial non-compliance with discovery. Campanello sued the Port Authority and several officers alleging malicious prosecution and related claims. On defendants' motion to dismiss, the court granted the motion in part, holding that certain malicious prosecution claims against the Port Authority were barred by the one-year statute of limitations under N.J. Stat. Ann. 32:1-163 and that claims against the individual officers failed because the dismissals were not terminations in the plaintiff's favor on the merits, and denied the motion in part as to any remaining timely claims.
This case involves Nancy Anderson, formerly Vice President of Human Resources at DSM Pharmaceuticals Inc., who was terminated after objecting to a new reporting structure and taking FMLA medical leave following related stress and health issues. Anderson sued the defendants alleging breach of contract and FMLA violations tied to her at-will employment and the circumstances of her dismissal. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Core reasoning centered on Anderson's inability to establish a prima facie case for certain claims like those under the ADA, her failure to properly plead others, and the existence of factual disputes regarding whether her FMLA leave was improperly considered in the termination decision.