 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Buschmeier v. G&G Invs., Inc., No. 05-4839,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied attorney's fees to law firm for its post-judgment representation of company, given unlikelihood that appellee would be able to recover full amount of judgment owed by company. The firm should have been allowed to withdraw, given stage of litigation, lack of prejudice, and unreasonable financial burden that firm faced.
|
|||||
| Eichenlaub v. Twp. of Indiana, No. 05-2476; No. 05-2498,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In awarding attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988, district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that landowners' unsuccessful claims were so closely related to their successful First Amendment retaliation and their mandamus claims that no reduction in fees was warranted because all claims held common core of operative facts.
|
|||||
| Henderson v. Morrone, No. 05-5317,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in granting Philadelphia Housing Authority's motion to vacate consent decree, in which it agreed to provide section 8 tenant and others due process before terminating rental assistance, because parties anticipated HUD regulations and decree provided greater and more specific protections for tenants than HUD regulations.
|
|||||
| Jin Yun Xiao v. AG of the United States, No. 05-2170,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's claims for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158 and 1231(b)(3) were remanded because an IJ's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence; the IJ's finding that the alien was not credible based on, inter alia, a failure to make eye contact was speculative and based on personal opinion.
|
|||||
| Safeguard Lighting Sys. v. N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co., NO. 05-3866,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insureds' motion for reconsideration of denial of their motion to vacate and strike judgment entered under E.D. Pa. Civ. R. 41.1(b) dismissing with prejudice their action against insurer was properly denied because under settlement, insurer was to pay insureds sum in exchange for executed settlement agreement, so dismissal of action was proper.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wynn, No. 05-4775,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 210 month sentence for 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), 846, offense was not unreasonable. District court could consider hearsay evidence in adopting managerial/supervisory role enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(b). District court sufficiently explained why disparate sentence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(6) was proper.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
