 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adegbuji v. Middlesex County, NO. 04-1304,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a detainee awaiting removal alleged that he was denied asylum as a result of a seizure of evidence during a cell search, his claim of denial of access to the courts should not have been dismissed, because he stated a claim sufficient to survive sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
|
|||||
| Argueta v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-2710,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of final order of removal was denied; the claim that a 1994 drug conviction was not an aggravated felony was not exhausted, even if a 2003 conviction was on appeal, the 1994 conviction precluded cancellation of removal on a 2001 conviction, and habeas proceeding was the proper venue for post-removal detention issues.
|
|||||
| Barrie v. AG of the United States, No. 05-1486,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported BIA's decision. Alien failed to show that, when rebels entered and terrorized his entire Sierra Leone village in 1997, he was personally persecuted due to his political affiliation. Alien could not show reasonable fear of future persecution because country conditions had changed.
|
|||||
| Kaur v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-2623,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of BIA order that affirmed an IJ's denial of the alien's second motion to reopen was dismissed because the alien failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, as required by 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252, by challenging the substance of the IJ's decision in her appeal to the BIA.
|
|||||
| Leyva v. Computer Scis. Corp., No. 05-1622,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of employer in an age discrimination action was affirmed as the employee failed to create a triable issue of fact that the employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for discharging employee were pretextual. Fact that termination was just shy of employee's pension vesting date did not constitute age discrimination.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ayala, No. 05-2065,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on totality of circumstances, face-to-face tip from anonymous informant provided officers with reasonable suspicion to stop defendant and frisk him, which resulted in his arrest on a weapons charge. The informant claimed defendant threatened to shoot him, he was visibly shaken by the threat, and he gave a good description of defendant.
|
|||||
| Velocita Corp. v. Constr. Mgmt. & Inspection, Inc. (In re Velocita Corp.), No. 05-1709,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's affirmance of bankruptcy court's dismissal of a company's negligent misrepresentation action against law firm representing debtors was proper. The action was related to debtors' Chapter 11 case, there was no cause of action for negligent misrepresentation of a future event, and the refusal to withdraw reference was appropriate.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
