 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gwan v. AG of the United States, No. 04-4538,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA's decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of a husband and wife's applications for asylum was affirmed by the appellate court because there was no evidence that compelled a finding that the alleged persecution of the husband and wife was motivated by religious or ethnic animus.
|
|||||
| Hall v. SEPTA, No. 05-1364,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although sergeant was deprived of property by reimbursement order, there was no constitutional violation since he received notice of investigation and chance to make case. There was no merit in claim sergeant was subjected to retaliatory actions for voicing concerns that corruption motivated reimbursement order, as never made suspicions public.
|
|||||
| In re Martinez, No. 05-4682,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of mandamus, which sought to compel district court to effect service of process in petitioner's civil rights suit, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(d), and to rule on motion for appointment of counsel, was denied as moot where district court, inter alia, denied petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel and dismissed his complaint.
|
|||||
| Rodgers v. AG of the United States, No. 04-2007,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was properly denied asylum because substantial evidence supported IJ's ruling that alien failed to demonstrate that Guyanese government or police was unwilling to protect him from a gang, which alien alleged would murder him if he returned to Guyana because alien was witness to shooting between gang and police and FBI was investigating gang.
|
|||||
| Francis v. Smith, NO. 05-4640,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 2241 petition was properly dismissed because he provided no argument why § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to bring his current claims, and claims raised in his § 2241 petition could have been raised on direct appeal or in his previous collateral attacks on his conviction and sentence.
|
|||||
| Hamm v. Rendell, NO. 05-3016,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court dismissed defendant's complaint regarding First Amendment and due process issues under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A. The appellate court was unwilling to hold that, had the district court applied the correct standards, the court would have correctly held that defendant failed to state a claim and could not correct that failure by amendment.
|
|||||
| Nawaz v. AG of the United States, NO. 04-3411,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review was granted and the case was remanded because there was evidence suggesting that, through no fault of his own, and instead due to the possible ineffective assistance of counsel, the alien was deprived of further proceedings in his challenge to a removal order.
|
|||||
| United States v. Moore, No. 04-3532,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, 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. |
