 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hong Hong v. AG of the United States, NO. 04-3000,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a 15-year-old alien from China testified against a criminal smuggling gang and the BIA denied his asylum application under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A), remand was necessary for a fuller explanation because the BIA opinion failed to provide a principled reason for the conclusion it reached.
|
|||||
| IFC Interconsult, AG v. Safeguard Int'l Partners, LLC, Nos. 05-1817 and 04-3933,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court had ancillary enforcement jurisdiction over the Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 garnishment action of a federal judgment creditor, the garnishor, against the garnishee fund, a nonparty to the original lawsuit who was secondarily liable based on an indemnification agreement with the judgment debtor.
|
|||||
| Lim v. AG of the United States, No. 05-1077,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a Christian Chinese alien from Indonesia presented credible evidence of attacks against her, but the IJ denied her asylum claim under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101(a)(42) and 1158(b)(1), remand was necessary because the IJ overlooked evidence that ethnicity and religion played a major role in the attacks upon the alien.
|
|||||
| Mayaram Damodarshai Sadhu v. AG of the United States, No. 04-1440,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the aliens' motion to reconsider because it did not raise errors of fact or law regarding the denial of their motion to reopen and the claim that the IJ or BIA did not consider evidence of past persecution presented at the hearing was not properly before the BIA.
|
|||||
| Perkins v. Sebring Assocs. the Excelsior II, NO. 05-2235,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' § 1983 action against defendants, apartment building and owner, alleging that defendants disregarded plaintiffs' rights by allowing police to enter building to arrest plaintiffs, was properly dismissed because allegations did not state claim under § 1983 for violation of Fourth Amendment as there was no state action.
|
|||||
| RCN Corp. v. Paramount Pavilion Group, LLC, No: 04-1933; No: 04-1971,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for a telecommunications company was affirmed because a redevelopement group was in default pursuant to a promotional agreement signed by the parties by failing to break ground, and the company was entitled to terminate the agreement. By failing to repay the monies owed to the company under the agreement, the group was in breach.
|
|||||
| Toll v. Am. Airlines Inc., NO. 05-1534,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was an experienced pro se litigator and had previously filed numerous Title VII complaints against the employer and the union. Still, the employee's complaint failed to allege any cognizable adverse employment action and thus, the frivolous nature of the complaint, alone, supported a finding of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 violation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Duarte, No: 03-4662,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty plea was made voluntarily and intelligently, reversible error did not exist, and the plea was valid where, inter alia, during the guilty plea colloquy under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the district judge determined that defendant understood nature of charges and potential prison sentence, and that there was a factual basis for the plea.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
