 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Balter v. United States, NO. 04-3687,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's FTCA claim was time barred under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2401(b) because inmate knew of both existence and probable cause of his eye injury in August 1997 when he was told by two eye specialists that delay in seeking treatment had adversely affected his prognosis, but he did not file his administrative claim until more than three years later.
|
|||||
| Burkhart v. Potter, No: 05-2326,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of judgment in favor of the U.S. Postal Service in an action involving claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 failed. Former employee failed to show error in magistrate's management of discovery, and her claims regarding evidentiary errors and limitations on trial time were without merit.
|
|||||
| N.J. Dep't of Treasury v. Visara Int'l, Inc., No. 05-1196,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A purchaser was properly granted summary judgment on New Jersey's contract and fraud action on res judicata grounds because New Jersey, absent evidence of a novation, remained a debtor's creditor under their contracts during bankruptcy proceedings and the plan's confirmation resolved the action.
|
|||||
| United States v. Leahy, Nos. 03-4490 / 03-4184 / 03-4542 / 03-4560 / 04-2912,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Booker arguments against forfeiture and restitution orders failed. Sixth Amendment right to jury trial was not implicated in forfeiture matters and as determination of full restitution amount under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act or Witness Protection Act did not impose punishment beyond statutory maximum under the Acts, Booker did not apply.
|
|||||
| United States v. Russo, No. 04-2754,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for fraudulent activities were affirmed as the evidence was sufficient and the district court did not err in its instructions. While the district court properly set restitution under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3663A, the court violated defendant's Sixth Amendment rights at sentencing because the court made fact based determinations.
|
|||||
| Wall v. Dauphin County, Case No: 04-4112,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fourteenth Amendment rights of a pretrial detainee, who collapsed while playing basketball in a hot gym, were not violated by county prison's recreation policies; the policies were not punishment, they were rationally related to legitimate purpose of allowing inmate's to exercise, and restrictions placed on recreation served security interests.
|
|||||
| Yuhasz v. Poritz, No: 05-1660; No: 05-1838; No: 05-2872,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Individual failed to allege a due process violation in her claim that she was not provided with disciplinary notice prior to termination as required by N.J. Admin. Code. § 4A:2-2.5 because the statute did not necessarily entitle an employee to written notice and provided that the right to a hearing was waived if not requested within five days.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
