 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chen Wei Ren v. Sherman, NO. 05-3732,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No substantial question was presented by an appeal of the denial of a habeas petition because a prisoner's belief that he may have been granted earlier release on parole had he been in state custody was insufficient to mandate that an award of federal sentence credit and because 18 U.S.C.S. § 3585(b) prohibited the award of double credit.
|
|||||
| Delgado-Sanchez v. AG of the United States, No. 02-4533,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because IJ's denial of aliens' application for cancellation of removal was based on finding that 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b's "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" requirement was not met, which was within his discretionary power, court lacked jurisdiction to review IJ's decision under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
|
|||||
| Duvall v. AG of the United States, No. 04-4412,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A litigation error by the INS, resulting in an adverse determination on the issue of alienage during deportation proceedings, did not preclude the government from thereafter seeking to remove the alien based on subsequent criminal acts because, to apply the collateral estoppel doctrine in such circumstance, would frustrate legislative policy.
|
|||||
| Hairston v. Nash, NO. 05-4809,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas petition was properly dismissed where inmate did not suffer a due process violation on account of transfer because transfer implicated no protected liberty interest, potential First Amendment claim was not viable because inmate had not demonstrated any actual injury, and his reliance on Fed. R. App. P. 23(a) was misplaced.
|
|||||
| In re Cole, NO. 05-5497,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Jamalud-Din Almahdi, No. 06-1121,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Lopez, NO. 06-1108,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp. v. Sinochem Int'l Co., No. 04-1816,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court should not have dismissed a maritime case on forum non conveniens grounds because, while it correctly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction, it had not yet ascertained whether it had personal jurisdiction over the parties, a determination it was required to make prior to engaging in a forum non conveniens analysis.
|
|||||
| NVE Inc. v. HHS, No. 04-4481,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, the de novo standard of review delineated in 21 U.S.C.S. § 342(f)(1) did not apply to private party actions, and the Government did not retain the burden of proof in such actions either; therefore, a manufacturer was bound by the normal rules relating to judicial deference.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
