 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Acosta v. Nash, NO. 05-3421,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 was denied because his due process rights were not denied in a disciplinary proceeding relating to a fight; the record showed that the inmate had notice of the hearing, he was given the opportunity to present evidence, he was permitted assistance from a representative, and he received a written decision.
|
|||||
| Castillo v. United States, NO. 05-3431,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A waiver of sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply due to the discretionary function exception under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2680(a) in a case where an inmate was injured during a required meeting with members of a rival gang; an integration plan was the product of a staff member's judgment and his analysis of policy.
|
|||||
| Dev. Group, LLC v. Franklin Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 05-1055,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment to defendants, township board of supervisors, planning commission, officials, and solicitor, on property owners' substantive due process claims in their land use action because owners' evidence failed to show that defendants engaged in "conscience-shocking" behavior in their actions.
|
|||||
| Edward v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-3239,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Immigrant's petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging an order of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1228 was dismissed because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(d)(1); the immigrant waived the right to rebut the charges against him when he signed a form admitting the allegations relating to certain convictions.
|
|||||
| Gonzales v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-3333,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of IJ's denial of his request withholding of removal and CAT relief after he was found removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony was denied because his due process claim failed because he failed to show prejudice, and § 207 of INA did not apply because alien was already present in U.S.
|
|||||
| Mintze v. Am. Fin. Servs., Inc. (In re Mintze), No. 03-4745,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bankruptcy court erred in finding that it had discretion to deny enforcement of an arbitration clause in a Chapter 13 debtor's loan agreement; under the FAA, 9 U.S.C.S. §§ 1-14, arbitration was required because the debtor failed to establish congressional intent to preclude waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue.
|
|||||
| Shaffer v. Meyers, No. 04-4120,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A habeas corpus petition was properly denied, as inmate's Ex Post Facto Clause claim failed because he could not show prejudice arising from Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole's alleged retrospective application of 1996 version of Parole Act of 1941 to his case. The inmate would not have been granted parole under prior version of statute.
|
|||||
| United States v. Coleman, NO. 05-4639,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's petition under All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651, for writ of audita querela was properly denied because § 2255 was exclusive means to challenge his sentence, and § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective so as to enable inmate to resort to writ of audita querela merely because he suffered adverse decision in prior § 2255 proceeding.
|
|||||
| United States v. Guishard, No. 04-2129,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were affirmed, but he was entitled to new sentencing due to plain Booker error. Motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied; the government presented sufficient evidence to support convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 666(a)(1)(B), 1001, 4. Accomplice's out-of-court statements were properly admitted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
