 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bam Bang Soebiakto v. United States AG, No. 04-2082,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals was without jurisdiction to consider denial of asylum based on an untimely application for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231 withholding of removal was properly denied as alien failed to corroborate ethnic persecution claims and failed to establish that he was prohibited from practicing Christian faith in Indonesia.
|
|||||
| Evans v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson, No. 04-4062,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment dismissing employees' claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1981, 1983 was affirmed; neither employee established a "minimal prima facie case" with respect to promotion decisions because there was no evidence of record that would support a finding that either of the employees was qualified for the promotions at issue.
|
|||||
| In re Suprema Specialties, Inc. Sec. Litig., Nos. 04-3716 & 04-3755,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Investors' 15 U.S.C.S. § 78j(b) claims against a corporation's officers and its auditor were erroneously dismissed by the district court because the allegations of scienter against the officers satisfied the heightened pleading requirements of the PSLRA, and the allegations of recklessness against the auditor amounted to more than mere negligence.
|
|||||
| Klatch v. Sugarloaf Twp., NO. 05-1081,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Magistrate properly considered township resident's First Amendment and equal protection claims as abandoned where she failed to pursue them in any manner after summary judgment was granted in favor of a township and its officials on a negligence claim, and the only evidence presented at trial was on an IIED claim.
|
|||||
| Marretta v. Comm'r, Case No. 04-2679,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tax court decision affirming penalties assessed on a taxpayer who failed to report income from a Ponzi scheme was affirmed. Taxpayer's monthly payments from scheme were clearly income under I.R.C. § 21, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue carried his burden of showing that the taxpayer's underpayment of taxes was due to fraud.
|
|||||
| Schuenemann v. United States, No. 05-2565,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 case, administrators of an estate were unable to show a violation of substantive due process based on a pretrial detainee's suicide because they failed to show that government entities would have uncovered a particular vulnerability for suicide if additional screening measures had been in place.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rahamin, No. 04-1982,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not plainly err when it admitted evidence of audio and video tapes of the controlled buy under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) where the testimony of the co-conspirator was more than sufficient to find that a conspiracy existed that involved defendant, and the statements on the tapes were in furtherance of the conspiracy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
