 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cristin v. Wolfe, Case No: 05-1626,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's untimely habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) was not subject to equitable tolling where counsel's alleged failure to inform her that he was no longer representing her and that he was not filing a petition for allowance of appeal with the state supreme court.
|
|||||
| Flynn v. Health Advocate, Inc., No. 05-1815,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trademark infringement claim failed to survive summary judgment because appellants failed to establish secondary meaning in the mark since, inter alia, the descriptive nature of the mark and the widespread third-party use of the mark undermined a claim of exclusivity and evidence purporting to show actual confusion was insufficient.
|
|||||
| Henry v. Merrill Lynch, NO. 05-1241,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's order to compel enforcement of a settlement agreement was vacated and remanded for further proceedings as the appellate court could not determine from the record the existence and extent of the authority of a party's attorney in the settlement negotiations. Thus, an evidentiary hearing was necessary to establish the relevant facts.
|
|||||
| Hunter v. Fed. Express Corp., Case No: 04-3563,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of the deferential standard of review under ERISA established that the employer's benefits review committee's decision to terminate the employee's long term disability benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, and thus, the judgment of the district court in favor of restoring the employee's long term disability benefits was reversed.
|
|||||
| Quintero-Valencia v. Ag of the United States, Case No: 05-2000,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was properly denied reconsideration because IJ's adverse credibility decision was supported by record and alien failed to provide convincing explanations for discrepancies and omissions; record also supported IJ's finding that mistreatment and extortion alien and her boyfriend sustained were not based on actual or imputed political opinion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Crute, No. 04-3107,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the inmate needed to seek court of appeal's authorization before he could proceed with another § 2255 motion, he waited until nine months after the one-year limitations period expired to apply to file his third § 2255 motion. Thus, given his lack of diligence, there was no basis for equitably tolling the one-year statute of limitations.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
