 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Heleva v. Kramer, NO. 06-1538,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in dismissing inmate's claim that prison officials violated his First Amendment right to exercise his religion when they deprived him of alleged religious books because he alleged his religion, manner in which he sought to exercise it, and manner in which officials prevented him from doing so, which was all that was required.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Keebler-Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., NO. 06-3219,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former employer was properly granted summary judgment in Title VII suit. District court erred in holding that employee failed to establish prima facie case. Discrimination could be inferred from fact that his position was given to Caucasian, female co-worker. Employee did not rebut legitimate reason proffered by employer to explain his transfer.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., No. 05-2539,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clear repudiation rule applied with regard to employee's 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B) miscalculation of benefits claim. Claim accrued in 1987 when employee received first payment of benefits under long term disability plan. Receipt of incorrect benefits put employee on notice that benefits had partially been denied. Employee's suit was time-barred.
|
|||||
| Nelson v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., NO. 06-2140,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from district court's denial of his request for injunctive relief of removal from custody of department of corrections, protection from defendants, and blood test and medical care from federal medical provider was dismissed as moot because inmate had been released on parole and defendants could not provide relief he requested.
|
|||||
| United States v. Colon, No. 05-3684,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentencing appeal was denied. Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), district court could consider defendant's involvement in drug delivery transaction for purposes of setting his base offense level. It sufficiently explained why it imposed above-guidelines sentence for his 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), crimes.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lynch, No. 06-1747,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification evidence because there was not substantial likelihood of misidentification given officers' observations of suspect during car chase and collision, area was sufficiently lighted when observations were made, and officers identified defendant less than 24 hours of incident.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. MVM, Inc., No. 05-3204,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where former court security officers (CSO) failed to take advantage of an administrative review process after they were terminated - by failing to pursue their claims after being unsuccessful at the first step - or filed no grievance at all, they could not make out a due process claim against federal entities and private contractor.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
