 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| In re Raza, NO. 05-5013,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Murphy v. C.W., No. 04-4441,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Social worker, city department of human services, and treatment facility were properly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's state law negligence and § 1983 action arising out of injury plaintiff suffered when mentally retarded child spit on her because facts did not establish that department and facility were guilty of gross negligence.
|
|||||
| Pri-Har v. AG of the United States, No. 05-2635,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien was denied habeas relief, his Fed. R. Civ. P. 70 motions were properly denied because no evidence supported a finding that the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement failed to comply with an order regarding INA § 212(h) relief; also, his aggravated felonies served as a basis for expedited removal proceedings.
|
|||||
| Turner v. Dragovich, NO. 04-3681,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate's habeas petition was dismissed and he filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, he was not entitled to relief, because the motion was untimely and, even if a showing of actual innocence could trigger equitable tolling, the inmate failed to support his allegations with new reliable and probative evidence that was not presented at trial.
|
|||||
| Vallies v. Sky Bank, No. 05-1002,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in ruling that third-party disclosure of information regarding exclusion of debt cancellation coverage premium from a creditor's finance charge calculations was allowed under TILA. Based on clear language of 12 C.F.R. §§ 226.2(17)(a), 225.17, 226.18, the creditor, and only the creditor, could make the disclosure.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
