 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alexander v. Shannon, NO. 05-1651,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was properly denied 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 relief on claim that he was denied due process by prosecutor's statement in closing that defense "would like you to victimize the victim again" because the strength of the evidence against the inmate supported conclusion that trial was not so infected with unfairness that it was constitutionally infirm.
|
|||||
| Avetisyan v. Gonzales, No. 04-4724,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review was denied because his false visa application, lack of documentary evidence, and minor inconsistencies supported IJ's and BIA's decisions to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, and IJ's adverse credibility determination and BIA's affirmance were supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Bosco v. United States, No. 04-4146,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly ruled in the government's favor on an FTCA claim by a contractor's employee who stepped into a puddle and caught his foot in a grate; under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1346(b)(1), the government could not be held liable for failing to enforce a parking policy, and the employee failed to show that improper maintenance caused the puddle.
|
|||||
| City of Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Rels. v. Key Bank USA, NO. 05-1602,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bank had not shown that circumstances warranted finding exception to general rule, given that there was no plausible reason why state court could not fairly and competently decide issue. When district court had dismissed claim that gave it original jurisdiction, it should decline to hear pendent state claims, absent extraordinary circumstances.
|
|||||
| Gallenthin Realty Dev., Inc. v. BP Prods. of N. Am., Inc., No. 05-1822,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly dismissed property owners' suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. District court could not exercise 28 U.S.C.S. § 1331 federal question jurisdiction over suit because River and Harbors Improvement Act did not provide private right of action and local land use ordinance did not materially affect interstate commerce.
|
|||||
| He Qin Qiu v. AG of the United States, No. 05-1285,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT were supported by substantial evidence. Alien failed to show membership in persecuted social group, well-founded fear of persecution or torture, or that he could not avoid the village leader who had a personal vendetta against him by simply moving elsewhere in China.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. 04-2239,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 2254 petition was properly denied because state parole board did not violate Ex Post Facto Clause by applying retroactively Pennsylvania's DNA Detection of Sexual and Violent Offenders Act, 44 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2301-2336, because collection of DNA samples was non-penal and denial of parole for refusal to comply was not ex post facto.
|
|||||
| Lapinski v. Bd. of Educ., No. 04-1709,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public school employers were improperly granted summary judgment on public school employee's First Amendment retaliation claim because the employers' failure to renew the employee's employment contract constituted adverse employment action for purposes of employee's First Amendment retaliation claim.
|
|||||
| Muaddi v. AG of the United States, No. 04-4328,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review was denied. Substantial evidence supported BIA's conclusion that alien had failed to meet his burden of proof with regard to his asylum application. Alien was asked to provide corroborative evidence to support persecution claim, it should have been available to him, and he failed to explain why he did not present such evidence.
|
|||||
| Porro v. N.J. Meadowlands Comm'n, NO. 05-2507,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider order that dismissed plaintiff's inverse condemnation and civil rights claims; plaintiff failed to contest one of the findings that supported dismissal of former claim and his conclusory arguments did not warrant reconsideration of the latter claims.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
