 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arnold v. Pennsylvania, Case No: 05-5037, Case No: 05-5227,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in modifying a confidentiality order entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to allow disclosure of the names of public employees whose attendance at a contractor's entertainment events was confirmed; privacy factors weighed against disclosure of names of the contractor's employees.
|
|||||
| Coleman v. Samuels, No. 06-3888,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 2241 petition was properly dismissed because inmate's allegation that he was actually innocent of predicate conviction set forth in original indictment was not new and had been raised and addressed on direct appeal and presented again in a prior § 2255 motion he had filed, so the Dorsainvil exception was inapplicable.
|
|||||
| Comet v. AG of the United States, Case No: 04-2934,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an IJ made one error, substantial evidence nevertheless supported his finding that government rebutted presumption that alien would face future political persecution in Kenya. IJ erred in relying on fact that ruling party lost power to conclude that political conditions had changed. Alien could avoid persecution by relocating within Kenya.
|
|||||
| Dicroce v. Norton, No. 06-2117,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly entered against a federal employee, who filed Title VII suit well after 90 day time period set out in 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-5(f)(1) expired. Employee did not present evidence supporting his equitable tolling claim. A factual dispute did not exist as to whether he had received order denying prior in forma pauperis motion.
|
|||||
| Gweh v. United States DOJ, No. 05-5424,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was properly placed into removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) even though his refugee status was never terminated because he was legal permanent resident and committed aggravated felony; alien could not seek withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3)(B) as his robbery conviction was particularly serious crime.
|
|||||
| Ibarra v. W.Q.S.U. Radio Broad. Org., No. 06-3050,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from district court's denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for leave to reopen order dismissing his complaint was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because appeal from underlying dismissal order was untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) and none of bases for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion were met.
|
|||||
| Jeune v. AG of the United States, Case No: 05-3103,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA erred in entering final removal order against alien because government had not shown that alien was removable under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), based on his 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30) conviction. Evidence did not show that alien's crime had drug trafficking element or that it constituted felony under federal law.
|
|||||
| Kibinda v. AG of the United States, No. 05-4237,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported IJ's findings that alien failed to meet his burden of showing his eligibility for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(b)(1), for withholding of removal, or for relief under the CAT. Alien, who was a valued member of Angolan army, did not present objective evidence showing that he would be persecuted or tortured in Angola.
|
|||||
| Pribec v. AG of the United States, No. 05-3105,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court could not consider aliens' due process claim because claim had not been administratively exhausted. Although it was couched as constitutional claim, claim arose from IJ's alleged bias, which was procedural defect that was correctable through administrative process. The aliens should move to reopen their case to raise issue before BIA.
|
|||||
| Sutiono v. AG of the United States, No. 05-5205,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was substantial evidence in the record to support the IJ's determination, based on State Department reports and other record evidence, that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that circumstances had fundamentally changed in Indonesia since the alien's last incident, the alien's petition for review was denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
