 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abusheikh v. AG of the United States, No. 05-5130,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(D), court denied alien's petition for review of denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b because alien failed to prove equal protection violation under Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as he failed to demonstrate disparate treatment of different groups.
|
|||||
| Allen v. AMTRAK, No. 05-4551,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was properly awarded summary judgment on employee's racial discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the employer's prompt reaction to a racially offensive remark and a derogatory flyer precluded a finding of a hostile work environment, and the employees failed to establish unlawful retaliation.
|
|||||
| Awala v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., No. 05-4899,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from dismissal of complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b) was dismissed because as to lack of access to courts claims, inmate failed to allege actual injury emanating from lack of resources in prison library, and with respect to inadequate medical treatment claim, inmate failed to allege any medical need.
|
|||||
| Bax v. Warden, No. 06-4187,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 was properly dismissed because inmate's claims fell within purview of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 as they challenged validity of his conviction and sentence, and inmate had not demonstrated that § 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective" remedy under circumstances presented.
|
|||||
| Cole v. Warden, No. 06-3546,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 2241 petition, which asserted that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate prior testimony of government witness and that his sentence was unlawfully enhanced in violation of Booker, was properly dismissed because § 2255 could not be considered ineffective or inadequate, and In re Dorsainvil exception was inapplicable.
|
|||||
| Gauwi v. AG of the United States, No. 05-3980; No. 05-5165,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ was not required to give aliens the benefit of the doubt in determining whether they should have been excepted under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a)(2)(D) from the deadline for filing for asylum. Substantial evidence supported a finding that ethnic and religious discrimination in Indonesia did not warrant withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231.
|
|||||
| In re Hubbard, NO. 07-1011,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Detainee's mandamus petition for order directing district court to rule on habeas petition, which challenged conviction that led to his removal, was denied because he failed to show no other adequate means to obtain relief as 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 was not "inadequate or ineffective" merely because sentencing court was not inclined to grant relief.
|
|||||
| Oliver v. Court of Common Pleas, No. 04-3209,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State inmate's federal habeas claim alleging that he was denied new appointed counsel was unexhausted under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(b)(1). The counsel-of-choice claim was not substantially equivalent to a claim raised on direct appeal that his waiver of counsel should have been invalidated; the claims involved different aspects of the Sixth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Pharm. Sales Consulting Corp. v. Accucorp Packaging, Inc., NO. 05-3693; NO. 05-3923,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly found that a supplier had a valid defense to a marketer's breach of contract claim because the marketer had engaged in commercial bribery in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:21-10 by making payments to persons connected with an employee of a third party in order to secure business with the third party.
|
|||||
| Schweitzer v. United States, No. 06-2580,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from denial of § 2241 habeas petition was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the inmate had not shown that § 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective" as to claim that his sentence was unconstitutional under Apprendi, Booker, and Blakely, and Parole Commission exercised lawful jurisdiction over him.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
