 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baiardi Food Chain v. United States, No. 06-1124,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Post-default agreements by some produce sellers to take reduced payments from a buyer and extend the payment period did not preclude the Secretary of Agriculture from imposing sanctions against the buyer under 7 U.S.C.S. § 499h(a) of PACA for the buyer's failure to make full payment promptly in violation of 7 U.S.C.S. § 499b(4).
|
|||||
| Banks v. County of Allegheny (In re Banks), No. 06-1837,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Debtor's action against county was properly dismissed because his intrusive search claim arose after he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and even if his other claims arose before he filed for bankruptcy, he did not have standing to pursue his claims because only the bankruptcy trustee had standing to pursue claims that were property of the estate.
|
|||||
| Banks v. Hentosh (In re Banks), No. 06-1838; No. 06-1839; No. 06-1840; No. 06-1841; No. 06-1842; No. 06-1843; No. 06-1844; No. 06-1845; No. 06-1846,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bankruptcy court properly dismissed debtor's adversary actions for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1334, 157 because they were unrelated to bankruptcy as supposed wrongs occurred after debtor filed for bankruptcy, so they were not property of bankruptcy estate such that their resolution would affect handling or administration of estate.
|
|||||
| Burke v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-3726,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Definition of acquiescence adopted by the BIA was the wrong legal standard to apply to CAT claims; rather, acquiescence to torture required only that government officials remain willfully blind to torturous conduct and breach their legal responsibility to prevent it. Thus, the alien's case was remanded so the BIA could apply the correct standard.
|
|||||
| Jing Shu Jiang v. Gonzales, No. 04-2000,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Remand was ordered. The BIA failed to consider material evidence when it vacated IJ's order granting aliens' asylum applications. BIA had not considered more recent country reports, which supported aliens' claim that they had well founded fear of future persecution in China under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42) because of their two American-born children.
|
|||||
| Komarovas v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-5384,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the BIA's failure of explanation, in the form of an IJ opinion or otherwise, made it impossible for the court to review its rationale for denying the aliens' applications for asylum and witholding of removal, court granted the aliens' petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Learn the Skills Corp., NO. 06-2246; NO. 06-4166 (Consolidated),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Complaint was properly dismissed against attorney because RICO and other claims against him relied on allegations that he improperly moved to dismiss earlier complaint against defendants involved in instant case, and challenged behavior was within scope of attorney's representation of his clients, and it failed to support claims against him.
|
|||||
| Singer v. Kimberly Clark Corp. (In re Am. Pad & Paper Co.), No. 05-1379, No. 05-1380, No. 05-1381, No. 05-1382,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee who was elected more than two years after entry of the order for relief could not bring avoidance actions because such actions were untimely under 11 U.S.C.S. § 546(a); the appointment of an interim trustee under 11 U.S.C.S. § 701 did not trigger an additional one-year period for filing the avoidance actions.
|
|||||
| Tjing v. AG of the United States, No. 05-4738,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported BIA's finding that alien did not qualify for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3)(A) as he admitted that he did not know why his home was burned and that girlfriend's family had gang members harass him because they perceived him as fooling around with her.
|
|||||
| Tjoo Kiat Ng v. AG of the United States, No. 05-5193,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of denial of asylum was denied because under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a)(3), court lacked jurisdiction to review his untimely asylum application, and even if court had jurisdiction, robberies that victimized alien in Indonesia would not constitute past persecution or under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
