 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dahlan v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 05-5546,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien detainee's deliberate indifference and unconstitutional confinement condition claims were properly dismissed. He did not allege that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Although district court erred in analyzing confinement condition claims under U.S. Const. amend. VIII, no due process violation was shown.
|
|||||
| Dutton v. Court of Common Pleas of Phila. Domestic Rels. Div., NO. 05-5168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed father's action against state family court because to extent father brought suit under § 1983, family court was not a "person" subject to § 1983 liability, and suits against a state were barred by the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity.
|
|||||
| Lin v. AG of the United States, No. 05-5069,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's due process rights were not violated when IJ refused to consider evidence showing his current knowledge of religious group. Although membership in group went to heart of his 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(b) asylum claim, alien knew nothing about group during his asylum interview. Lack of corroborating evidence supported adverse credibility finding.
|
|||||
| Maher v. Del. & Hudson Ry. Co., No. 05-1145,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give jury instructions requested by a railroad employee who sought to recover under FELA for injuries suffered when a train struck a tree that had fallen from third-party property; a proposed instruction regarding the railroad's duty under 45 U.S.C.S. § 51 was factually inaccurate.
|
|||||
| Mfrs. & Traders Trust v. Wyo. Sand & Stone, No. 05-4113,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly affirmed entry of summary judgment for Chapter 11 debtor's unsecured creditor in adversary proceeding, in which bank was seeking proceeds from sale of debtor's vehicles. Pursuant to 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1132.1(d), bank lost its security interest when it had notation of its liens removed from vehicles' certificates of title.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Gieda, No. 06-2127,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of summary judgment to police officers and the City on the restaurant owners' § 1983 action was affirmed because the actions of the officers did not constitute state action because one officer was off-duty and acting in the role of the building owner's nephew and the second officer was acting solely as a neutral peace officer.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ford, NO. 06-5039,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly refrained from adjudicating defendant's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion, which was filed while his direct appeal was pending, because disposition of defendant's direct appeal might render his motion moot, and the case also did not present the type of extraordinary circumstance that would warrant simultaneous review.
|
|||||
| United States v. Young, Case No.: 05-5032,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consideration of the statutory crack/powder cocaine ratio was an appropriate exercise of the district court discretion under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and an even lower sentence requested by defendant would have flouted the intent embodied in 21 U.S.C.S. § 841 and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c) (2006); defendant's sentence was affirmed.
|
|||||
| V Tech Servs. v. Street, No. 05-5136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal was proper of a company's claims that a government contractor and other defendants violated RICO by misrepresenting their intent to award subcontracts to disadvantaged businesses, as the causation requirement of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1964(c) was not satisfied; the company might not have been awarded a subcontract even absent the alleged fraud.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
