 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aruanno v. New Jersey, NO. 06-1643,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court improperly dismissed inmate's § 1983 complaint after screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A because complaint did not lie at core of habeas corpus as inmate sought relief that would render state's procedures in civil commitment hearings invalid and only sought new commitment hearing; thus, claims were cognizable under § 1983.
|
|||||
| Baranoski v. United States Attorney's Office, NO. 06-3151,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former police officer's appeal from district court denial of his motion grand jury access and dismissing his complaint against U.S. Attorney's office was dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because officer did not have a constitutional, statutory, or common law right to independently communicate with federal grand jury.
|
|||||
| Cardone v. Ryan, No. 06-3338,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from district court's 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1) dismissal of his § 1983 complaint was dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because judicial and prosecutorial defendants were immune from suit and inmate's counsel and public defender defendants were not state actors for 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 purposes.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lynch, No. 06-3984,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Manzella, No. 06-3434,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 30-month prison sentence for taking part in a counterfeit check ring violated 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582(a), as the sole purpose of the length of the sentence was to qualify defendant for a drug treatment program; rehabilitation as a sentencing factor under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(2)(D) could not be accomplished through imprisonment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
