 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abdel-Whab v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-2406,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA properly denied alien's second motion to reopen or reconsider as numerically barred because even if BIA had considered alien's claim that he timely gave his first motion to reopen to prison officials, BIA likely would have denied second motion because BIA's date of filing motion to reopen or reconsider was date notice was received by BIA.
|
|||||
| Asemani v. IRS, NO. 04-4144,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A taxpayer's suit alleging that the IRS abused its discretion when it rejected an offer made by the taxpayer to settle a tax obligation was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because no collection proceedings under 26 U.S.C.S. §§ 6330(c) and 6620(c) had commenced, and therefore the matter was not subject to judicial review.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Pfaff, NO. 05-2035,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer was properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's excessive force claim because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have concluded that officer's use of force during arrest was objectively unreasonable; in absence of constitutional violation, officer was entitled to qualified immunity.
|
|||||
| Bruton v. Paesani, No: 04-4051; No: 04-4155 (consolidated),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probation officers were entitled to qualified immunity in inmate's § 1983 action alleging violation of his Fourth Amendment rights arising out of entry into his home and subsequent search because it was reasonable for officers to believe that they had right to enter inmate's home based on parole condition and U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
|
|||||
| Cohen v. KB Mezzanine Fund II, LP (In re SubMicron Sys. Corp.), No. 03-2102,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly approved a sale of debtors' assets under 11 U.S.C.S. § 363(b) in which lenders' secured claims were credit bid under § 363(k); financing provided by the lenders was properly characterized as debt rather than equity, and § 363(k) allowed the full face value of the claims to be bid without an 11 U.S.C.S. § 506 valuation.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Domalakes, NO. 04-4795,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in dismissing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), inmate's complaint alleging denial of access to courts because allegations contained in complaint were minimally sufficient to state access to court's claim, so district court should have allowed inmate opportunity to amend prior to dismissing complaint.
|
|||||
| McKee v. Hart, No. 04-1442,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an employee's § 1983 suit alleging that his supervisor retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights, the denial of the supervisor's motion seeking qualified immunity was reversed; the allegedly retaliatory comments were trivial and insufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights.
|
|||||
| Saitoska v. Gonzales, No. 04-3459, No. 04-3460,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dismissed aliens' petitions for review of BIA's order summarily dismissing appeal for failure to file appellate brief because before aliens petitioned for review, they had filed motion to reconsider, which was granted and appeal was subsequently denied on its merits, so issue raised in aliens' petitions for review was not in controversy.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Henry S. Branscome, Inc., Case No: 04-4266,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Initial owner of vibrating roller and company that sold roller to paving worker's employer were properly granted summary judgment in worker's products liability action because there was no evidence that they modified the roller's propulsion levers or that they owed the worker a duty to warn of the change.
|
|||||
| Smith v. United States, No. 05-2982,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 2241 petition, challenging his indictment, was properly denied because claim was cognizable only under § 2255 as he called into question validity of conviction and sentence, and remedy afforded by § 2255 was not "inadequate or ineffective" merely because limitations period had expired or inmate could not meet gate-keeping requirements.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
