 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ali v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. 05-4972,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal was dismissed because it was untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) as it was not filed within 30 days after amended complaint was dismissed, appeal period was not tolled as no timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60 motion was filed, and appellants did not file a motion for extension of time to file appeal or to reopen time for filing.
|
|||||
| Caldon, Inc. v. Peerless Ins., No. 05-2250,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's complaint failed to make and allegation that the insurer was legally obligated to pay any damages to anyone; this type of pleading failed to satisfy even the liberal pleading standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and district court's dismissal of the insured's declaratory judgment suit against the insurer was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Glavatovic v. AG, No. 04-4662,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because alien failed to demonstrate lack of notice to justify his failure to appear at his removal proceedings and his motion to reopen in order to apply for readjustment of status on the basis of previously unavailable relief was untimely under former 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252b(c)(3)(B), BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen.
|
|||||
| In re Benjamin, NO. 06-3857,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's motion for revocation of naturalization was denied because only the United States Attorney could institute revocation proceedings against appellant under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1451(a), and such proceedings had not been instituted by the United States Attorney.
|
|||||
| Kennedy v. Warden, No. 06-3786,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed inmate's second 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas corpus petition because it lacked jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was proper vehicle for collaterally challenging inmate's convictions. Section § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective merely because inmate could not meet stringent gatekeeping requirements.
|
|||||
| Khan v. AG of the United States, No. 06-1097,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported an IJ's findings that an alien had failed to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) or relief under CAT. Unfulfilled threats and non-injurious rock-throwing incident did not rise to level of persecution or show that alien's life would be in danger if he returned to Bangladesh.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. General Star Indem. Co., No. 05-3392,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the excess policy required written notice, and where the evidence of oral notice was confused and fragmentary, the primary insurer failed to comply with mandatory conditions of coverage; excess insurer was substantially prejudiced by the primary insurer's failure to notify, and summary judgment favor of the excess insurer was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Quispe v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-4658,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of IJ's denial of alien's request for cancellation of removal was denied pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(D) because by plain terms of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b(b)(1)(D), Congress reserved hardship provision for "exceptional and extremely unusual" circumstances, not general scenario where removal would affect alien's children.
|
|||||
| Supriyadi v. AG of the United States, No. 05-5392,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported IJ's finding that alien failed to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3)(A) or for relief under the CAT. Incidents of harassment and discrimination did not rise to level of persecution or show that alien would be tortured due to his Christianity if he returned to Indonesia.
|
|||||
| Susilo v. AG of the United States, No. 04-3830; No. 05-1628,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was properly denied asylum because encountering discrimination on street, being robbed by muggers, and being harassed as a child by other children did not rise to level of persecution, and with regard to church bombing, there was no evidence that Indonesian government was unable or unwilling to protect Christians on Island of Java.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
