 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bullock v. Dressel, No. 05-1573,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Blacklisting of union "travelers" by local business manager was not "authorized by the union" or carried out in the union's official capacity, thus, the traveler's could not state 29 U.S.C.S. § 411(a)(5) violation. Analogous state statute of limitations, not 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(b), should have been applied to duty of fair representation claim.
|
|||||
| Ilchuk v. AG of the United States, No. 04-3094,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA erred in withholding of removal ruling. If petitioner could establish he would be imprisoned in Ukraine as a Pentecostal conscientious objector while objectors of other religions were given alternatives to military service, his imprisonment would be based on his religion and would support an 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3)(A) withholding of removal.
|
|||||
| Ricciardi v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., No. 05-1409,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mortgage company was properly awarded summary judgment on a mortgagor's Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim as notice was timely provided under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1691 to the mortgagor of the mortgage company's. Further, the company was properly awarded judgment on a Truth in Lending Act claim as it did not overcharge the mortgagor for title insurance.
|
|||||
| Satterfield v. Johnson, No. 04-3108,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate filed a post-conviction relief petition in the wrong state court, his petition was not properly filed for purposes of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(2), and therefore the inmate's federal habeas petition should have been dismissed as time-barred; due to lack of diligence, equitable principles did not warrant tolling of the statute either.
|
|||||
| United States v. Al-Ame, No. 04-3769,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud under 18 U.S.C.S. § 371 because his conduct qualified as mail fraud under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1341 when he caused imposter to take standardized test for him and have scores mailed to his home; mailing was derivative of defendant's scheme and would not have occurred but for that scheme.
|
|||||
| United States v. Edwards, No: 04-2685,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was affirmed on appeal. Court declined to consider defendant's claim, that seized evidence should have been suppressed, because he asserted new legal theory to support the claim on appeal; the theory was deemed waived under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(e) because defendant failed to raise it during district court suppression hearing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Laureano, No. 05-2078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not err in adding a criminal history point to defendant's sentencing guidelines calculation for a prior, unrelated conviction under 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3809 because the offense was not sufficiently similar to a minor traffic infraction or a local ordinance violation such that it had to be excluded from the calculation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Thomas, No. 05-1317,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motions seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas to drug and firearm offenses. Defendant presented only bald claim of innocence, which claim was contradicted by evidence and his admissions. Defendant's plea hearing statements undermined his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
|
|||||
| Winter v. Cycam/Med Source Techs., No: 05-3593,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was properly granted summary judgment on employee's ADA claim because not only did employee fail to explain precise nature of her disability, there was no evidence to suggest that employer's personnel knew that employee was even injured to such degree that it affected routine performance of her job.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
