 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bierley v. Grolumond, NO. 05-3696,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judge's failure under Pa. R. Crim. P. 114 to give a parolee a copy of a memorandum, which explained to a sheriff that the parolee's access to the courthouse was restricted, did not deprive the parolee of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; thus, the parolee's appeal from the dismissal of his § 1983 action was dismissed as frivolous.
|
|||||
| Brooks v. Beard, NO. 05-3196,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 1983 action against prison officials and administrators alleging Eighth Amendment and negligence claims was properly dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because he made no allegations that officials or administrators were personally involved in his treatment and allegations did not demonstrate "deliberate indifference."
|
|||||
| Chirikadzi v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-2739,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review was denied where, to extent that alien sought release from detention pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241, such a claim should have been presented to district court in the district in which he was detained, and, as to remaining claims, alien did not exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(d)(1).
|
|||||
| Cuvo v. De Biasi, No. 04-4221,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because police officers' conduct - arresting a driver for driving under the influence under 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1547 absent probable cause - violated the Fourth Amendment, and a reasonable official would understand as much, the officers and a detective were not entitled to qualified immunity on the driver's 42 U.S.C.S. 1983 claim.
|
|||||
| Dotzel v. Ashbridge, No. 04-2975,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Members of township board of supervisors were performing quasi-judicial functions when they denied application for permit to operate a gravel pit; therefore, a district court erred in ruling that the board members were not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity regarding substantive due process claims made against them in their individual capacities.
|
|||||
| Engelhard Corp. v. NLRB, Nos. 04-3034 & 04-4366,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a collective bargaining agreement contained a no-strike/no-lockout provision, an employer violated 29 U.S.C.S. § 158 when it suspended employees for picketing because the provision in question only applied when work was stopped or impeded; a statement of the parties' intent qualified the limitation on picketing.
|
|||||
| Graham v. Ferguson, NO. 04-1479,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from order, construing his letter as motion for reconsideration of dismissal of § 1983 action, was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291 because order did not end litigation as motion was still pending; under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4), time for filing appeal did not commence until district court disposed of motion.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. Gonzales, No. 04-3832,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due process did not demand that an immigrant should have been permitted to apply to suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1254(a) (repealed) because the section was not impermissibly retroactive as applied to him; inter alia, he did not voluntarily reveal his illegal status, and he was ineligible for relief for 10 years after a plea.
|
|||||
| In re Application of Adan, No. 05-3045,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting a father's application for return of his daughter to Argentina pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was vacated and remanded; further factfinding was necessary to determine what was the custody law of Argentina what were the terms of the parties' agreement regarding custody.
|
|||||
| Lattera v. Comm'r, No. 04-4721,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lump-sum proceeds from the sale of lottery winnings were properly treated as ordinary income, and not capital gains under I.R.C. §§ 1221, 1222, under the newly-adopted family resemblance test; because the right to lottery payments was a right to earned income, it should have received ordinary-income treatment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
