 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Corwin v. B'Nai B'Rith Senior Citizen Hous., Inc., No. 06-2362,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nursing home residents did not deny they agreed to the terms of a settlement, but argued the merits of their underlying complaint that they should be permitted to display a nativity scene in the building lobby during the Christmas holiday; because this claim was never adjudicated in district court, it was not properly before appellate court.
|
|||||
| Dare v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 06-2640,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: U.S. Parole Commission's (Commission) decision to deny defendant parole could not be said to be arbitrary and capricious where the Commission had authority to use information concerning dismissed charges and defendant's own history of escape was the reason why the one Community Corrections Center potentially willing to accept him would not.
|
|||||
| Espinosa v. County of Union, No. 05-4278; No. 05-4382,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because civil service employee did not produce evidence to establish a causal connection between his First Amendment expression and his termination, his retaliation claim failed; his due process rights were not violated when county withheld pay without a hearing because employee had not performed any services for county in over two years.
|
|||||
| Jimenez v. Hogsten, C.A. No. 06-3452,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Moyer v. United Dominion Indus., No. 04-2104,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: New trial was required in a strict products liability case in which workers were awarded damages for hand injuries allegedly caused by use of a metal-forming machine called a swager; the district court improperly excluded evidence that was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403 regarding misuse of the swager and a lack of prior injury claims.
|
|||||
| Silva-Rengifo v. AG of the United States, Nos: 04-4302, 05-3423,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA erred in finding for purposes of the CAT that governmental "acquiescence" to torture under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) required actual knowledge of torturous activity, as willful blindness was sufficient. A permanent resident offered sufficient evidence of the Colombian government's involvement in torture to require remand of a denial of relief.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fitzgerald, No. 05-4506,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's twenty-year-old conviction for sexual assault was not too remote in time and different in kind from the current offense of distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), to qualify as a pattern under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.2(b)(4), defendant's sentence was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Votta, No. 06-4441,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
