 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brooks-Mccollum v. Delaware, No. 05-4219,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's claims against state, chancery court, and vice chancellor were either barred by immunity or had to be dismissed under Younger abstention doctrine because there were ongoing state proceedings that were judicial in nature, which implicated important state interests, and afforded an adequate opportunity to raise the federal claims.
|
|||||
| Greenberg v. England, No. 05-4840,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Secretary of Navy was properly granted summary judgment on appellant's 18-year-old attempt to correct his military discharge status on ground that Board for Correction of Naval Records' rejection of his application to upgrade his discharge violated Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 706(2)(A), and Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 552a(d).
|
|||||
| United States v. Alevras, No. 05-3907,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from district court's grant of government's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion was dismissed because appellate court's jurisdiction over appeals from R. 35(b) motions stemmed from 18 U.S.C.S. § 3742 and appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review sentencing court's discretionary decision to depart downward from guidelines.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fuertes-Perez, No. 06-2651,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Kemp, No. 05-4211,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officers' seizure of gun from defendant's jacket pocket after traffic stop did not exceed scope of Terry or violate Fourth Amendment because officers had reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous based on fact that stop occurred in high-crime area, their observation of bulge in pocket, and his putting his hand in pocket.
|
|||||
| United States v. Leader, No. 06-1035,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded for resentencing because record contained no discussion by district court of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors or arguments advanced by defense in reliance thereon, but contained only statement that district court would impose sentence pursuant to sentencing guidelines absent compelling factors to ignore them.
|
|||||
| United States v. Smyth, No. 05-1046,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given defendant's criminal history and the factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553, it was reasonable to require that he receive sex offender treatment and to limit his association with minors in order to deter his criminal conduct; however, the limitation left too much guess as to its meaning and its application, and was remanded for clarification.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wallace, No. 06-1323,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from district court's order ruling on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion that he was entitled to return of watch but not cash seized during his arrest was dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because money was subject to lien under valid order of restitution under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3613(c), so he was not entitled to its return.
|
|||||
| Washington v. Sobina, NO. 05-4599,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal from denial of appellant's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition alleging denial of his Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial was dismissed because speedy trial issue was non-jurisdictional, and appellant's claim, therefore, was waived when appellant entered unconditional guilty plea to charges after third trial ended in hung jury.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
