 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ditch v. Grace, No. 05-3614,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of an inmate's petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 was affirmed; while the inmate was denied counsel at his preliminary hearing, the constitutional error was harmless because the evidence of guilt at trial was substantial as the Commonwealth presented unchallenged expert ballistics testimony.
|
|||||
| Kurtek v. Capital Blue Cross, No. 05-4325,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim brought by plaintiffs, a wife and her husband, that insurance companies failed to timely approve medical treatment for the wife was preempted by ERISA, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1144, because plaintiffs could have challenged companies' "medical necessity" determination by filing claim under § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA to recover benefits under plan.
|
|||||
| Lawson v. AG of the United States, Case No: 05-3822,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied an alien's petition for review because the alien knowingly waived his CAT claim before the IJ, and even if that were not the case, the alien failed to raise the CAT claim before the BIA, and thus, he failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that he exhausted the claim before the BIA pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(d)(1).
|
|||||
| United States v. Minnis, No. 05-4455,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because any challenge to fact that jury did not determine whether defendant had been three prior convictions required for imposition of minimum sentence of 15 years under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e) would be frivolous under Almendarez-Torres and defendant stipulated at trial to existence of three prior convictions.
|
|||||
| United States v. Scott, No. 05-4472,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a judge could make findings of facts that increased defendant's mandatory minimum sentence as long as those findings did not extend the sentence beyond the maximum authorized by the jury's verdict, defendant was properly sentenced under to the mandatory minimum term in 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c), and his Sixth Amendment rights were not violated.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
