 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. Hogsten, NO. 06-3521,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3621(b) and certain judicial precedent, district court correctly held that defendant was not entitled to immediate placement in any particular facility, including a community correctional center (CCC); the precedent only prescribed the steps the BOP was to take when considering a prisoner's placement in a CCC.
|
|||||
| Graf v. Moore, No. 04-1041,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the district court's misleading dismissal jeopardized an otherwise timely habeas petition pursuant to AEDPA, equitable tolling was warranted; appellate court reversed the denial of equitable tolling, and defendant's habeas petition was remanded for consideration on the merits.
|
|||||
| Greenway Ctr., Inc. v. Essex Ins. Co., No. 05-3782,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A declaratory judgment entered against insurer was vacated. District court erred in holding that issue preclusion applied and barred it from determining whether corporation was named insured's successor in interest. Insurer was not party or in privity with party to wrongful death suit, in which state court had ruled that corporation was successor.
|
|||||
| Mokhtar v. Gonzales, No. 06-1549,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the alien failed to exercise due diligence when he waited seven years to file his motion to reopen, alien failed to show exceptional circumstances under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), and the BIA's decision to deny the alien's motion for reconsideration was reasonable and was not arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.
|
|||||
| Register v. PNC Fin. Servs. Group, Inc., No. 05-5445,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cash balance plan did not discriminate against participants because of age in violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1054(b)(1)(H)(i), because the fact that the same contribution in the form of interest credits could result in a more valuable annuity for a younger employee was not age discrimination, but simply recognition of the time value of money.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
