 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Berg Chilling Sys. v. Hull Corp., No. 04-3589,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An asset purchaser did not assume a second contracting party's contractual liability to the first contracting party under any of the exceptions to the traditional corporate rule of successor non-liability. Thus, the finding that the asset purchaser did not succeed to the second contracting party's liability under a modified agreement was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Blacknall v. Citarella, NO. 05-3694,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of an arrestee's motion for certification of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) was summarily affirmed because there was no "substantial question." Among other matters, where one of the police officers responded with minimal force to a physical attack, the officer's actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Burns v. Lavender Hill Herb Farm, Inc., NO. 05-2651,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Law firm and lawyers were properly dismissed from a lawsuit due to lack of personal jurisdiction, as appellant failed to establish that they had sufficient contacts with Pennsylvania to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them under Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5322(b), and the Due Process Clause.
|
|||||
| Efren Ygana v. Gonzales, No. 04-2757,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied because he did not timely appeal an IJ's decision to the BIA and had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Additionally, the alien waived his opportunity to have the court consider his challenge to the IJ's denial of his motion for reconsideration by failing to argue it in his brief.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Reederei F. Laeisz G.M.B.H., No. 04-4335,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order finding in favor of a ship on a longshoreman's negligence claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act was vacated where the jury instruction on turnover duty omitted a substantive element of the ship's duty, and the court could not conclude that it was highly probable that the omission did not affect the outcome.
|
|||||
| Jensen v. Potter, No. 04-4078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of an employer on a Title VII retaliation claim was reversed because the district court incorrectly held that coworker harassment could not violate 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-3(a). A reasonable jury could find that the coworker harassment was the product of intentional discrimination because of the employee's protected activity.
|
|||||
| Juan Chen v. Gonzales, No. 04-4685,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying a Chinese alien's application for asylum and withholding of removal was vacated because the court found that the adverse credibility determinations concerning the alien's story of a forced abortion and a sterilization threat were not supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Lynn v. Schertzberg, No. 05-1857,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court was satisfied that the language in an arrestee's complaint was sufficient to allow the arrestee to proceed because the complaint included the basic relevant facts and a reference to unreasonable seizure and the Fourth Amendment; the district court was reversed on this claim and it was remanded for further proceedings.
|
|||||
| R & J Holding Co. v. Redevelopment Auth., No: 04-1666,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner's and property user's substantive due process claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 for an improper taking under the Fourteenth Amendment was time-barred because it was not timely as the two-year limitations period began to run once they had notice of the filing of the declaration of taking, not when a state appellate court issued a ruling.
|
|||||
| Rhymer v. Philip Morris, Inc., No: 05-2657,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's denial of a second motion to amend a complaint was not an abuse of discretion where the rationale for the motion was a realization that the complaint contained a legally defective theory of recovery, the complaint had been pending for more than two years, and discovery had been completed for at least two months.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
