 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Caushi v. AG of the United States, Nos. 04-4506 & 05-3151,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An immigration judge's determination that an alien was not eligible for asylum was not supported by substantial evidence because, while the alien detailed beatings, threats, violence, and intimidation which tended to establish a threat to life and freedom, the judge failed to give specific, cogent reasons for rejecting those allegations.
|
|||||
| Jerrytone v. Musto, No. 04-4145,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants with respect to a teacher's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims because the teacher, who was suspended due to reports of kids smoking marijuana in his classroom, had not produced sufficient evidence from which any reasonable jury could find that his constitutional rights were violated.
|
|||||
| L. E. v. Ramsey Bd. of Educ., No. 05-1157,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly affirmed an ALJ's decision that a board of education did not violate the IDEA; both tribunals applied the correct legal standards for reviewing least restrictive environment and free appropriate public education issues and their findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Thompson, P.A., NO. 04-4006,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed former client's legal malpractice action after he failed to file a N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-27 affidavit of merit where the common knowledge exception to the affidavit requirement did not apply. The fact that the client was proceeding pro se did not absolve him from the requirement that the affidavit be filed.
|
|||||
| Richards v. Duke Univ., NO. 05-1170,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's order appointing a guardian ad litem for pro se attorney was vacated, and the case was remanded because the district court abused its discretion since it did not apply the correct standard or make any factual findings to support such its decision. A university's motion to dismiss the appeal was denied.
|
|||||
| Stoe v. Flaherty, NO. 04-3947,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in ruling former officer's severance pay suit, based solely on state wage law, did not qualify for mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1334(c)(2); § 1334(c)(2) applied to cases removed to federal court that were "related to" a bankruptcy case rather than "arising in" a bankruptcy case or "arising under" Bankruptcy Code.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez, No. 04-4560,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly refused to grant downward adjustment under USSG § 3B1.2 because defendant conceded that he was partners with two coconspirators and that he was recruited by first coconspirator and that he recruited third coconspirator, and he did not dispute Government's claim that no member had power to terminate another.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
