 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dudash v. Dir., OWCP, No. 05-3025,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a widow's claim for survivor's benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act was denied, substantial evidence supported an ALJ's finding that her husband's pneumoconiosis was not a substantially contributing cause of death because, inter alia, the treating physicians' opinions were conclusory, insufficiently reasoned, and not well-documented.
|
|||||
| Gjocaj v. AG of the United States, No. 04-4521,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the denial of an alien's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture; an IJ had made an adverse credibility finding based on discrepancies between the alien's asylum application and his testimony concerning a key claim of persecution by police in Albania.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Nassberg, NO. 05-3717,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's appeal from dismissal of action alleging corruption, fraud, and general unfairness in reassessment of real estate values was dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of standing because alleged emotional and psychological injury was not sufficient injury in fact, nor was bringing generalized grievance as concerned citizen.
|
|||||
| Hines v. United States, NO. 05-4055,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Robinson, NO. 05-5421,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's petition for writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing district court to hold hearing on his Strickland claims, was denied because request was premature as such claims should be pursued through collateral proceedings, and counsel continued to represent defendant in post-trial proceedings.
|
|||||
| Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth, No. 04-3756,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment as a matter of law was denied after a verdict was entered in favor of a council member, who had been ejected from a public meeting, because the jury found that a president had an improper motive when making the decision; the member's First Amendment rights were violated, and qualified immunity did not apply.
|
|||||
| Rivera v. Pennsylvania, No. 04-2072,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there were no indicia in an inmate's letter to the district court from which the district court could have concluded that a Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) motion to reopen was before it, and the letter was untimely as a notice of appeal, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the inmate's claims.
|
|||||
| Vierra v. Wayne Mem. Hosp., No. 04-4510,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District Court properly granted summary judgment to a hospital on a nurse's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq., because the nurse did not have a substantially limiting impairment under 42 U.S.C.S. § 12102(2), and the hospital could not have retaliated against her within the meaning of the ADA.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
