 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Canal Ins. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. 04-3714,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the underwriter's broad "business use" exclusionary language, which prohibited any use of the covered auto that promoted the business purpose of the insured, unambiguously denied coverage to the insured for liability that arose from the accident, summary judgment in favor of the underwriter was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Dasilva v. Esmor Corr. Servs., No: 03-3095; No: 03-4435; No: 03-3096; No: 03-3348; No: 05-4007,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Extension of class action opt-out deadline was proper exercise of district court's equitable jurisdiction and not an abuse of discretion as original opt-out period was too short and all counsel had agreed to extension. Dismissal of second action against correctional services provider was proper as none of its plaintiffs opted out of class action.
|
|||||
| Friedman & Assocs. v. Smith (In re Smith), No. 02-4356,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court affirmed, to the extent that it had jurisdiction, a district court's affirmance of a bankruptcy court's order voiding an insurance settlement that was not disclosed as a debtor's asset. The circuit court also affirmed a finding that the debtor's attorney did not have an attorney's lien in the debtor's file or the insurance proceeds.
|
|||||
| Grajales v. AG of the United States, No. 05-1035,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying alien's motion to reopen appeal of deportation order; the motion was not timely under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and while the alien's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel might have tolled that time limit, the alien failed to satisfy the Lozada requirements for bringing such a claim.
|
|||||
| Ranke v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc., No. 04-4514,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employees' ERISA claims arising from employers' alleged misrepresentations concerning calculation of pension benefits were time-barred under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1113(1)(A); the "fraud or concealment" exception did not apply because the employers were not alleged to have affirmatively prevented discovery of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
|
|||||
| Stepanyants v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-1212,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was properly denied asylum because he failed to show that findings of IJ and BIA were not supported by substantial evidence or that evidence compelled reasonable factfinder to find that requisite fear of persecution existed; while he cited hostility of Turkmen government to Armenian Christians such as alien, he would go to Russia if deported.
|
|||||
| United States v. Forbes, No. 04-4211,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug-related convictions were affirmed but his case was remanded for resentencing under Booker. District court did not abuse its discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 when it admitted evidence concerning assault on drug dealer; evidence was relevant to show that defendant controlled drug-selling enterprise through force and intimidation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jenkins, No. 04-2145,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing because defendant was sentenced before the United States Supreme Court's decision in Booker, and the court had adopted a general policy of vacating sentences entered pursuant to pre-Booker law.
|
|||||
| United States v. Parker, No. 04-3458,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
