 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Griffith v. Mellon Bank, N.A., No. 04-3543,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bank was properly granted summary judgment on a breach of contract claim concerning its failure to honor a CD because the holder did not present sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence of nonpayment to overcome a common-law evidentiary presumption of payment based on the 26-year lapse between the CD's maturity and his demand for payment.
|
|||||
| Long Ming Zheng v. AG of the United States, No. 05-2006,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's inconsistent statements regarding the chronology of events surrounding a material issue provided a sufficient basis for the IJ's adverse credibility determination, and the record did not compel a contrary finding under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B) to the IJ's denial of the alien's application for asylum.
|
|||||
| Port Erie Plastics, Inc. v. Uptown Nails, LLC, No. 05-1749,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court where a corporation and its founders had removed a shareholder's declaratory judgment action did not err in ordering arbitration to proceed within its district in accordance with the unambiguous requirement of 9 U.S.C.S. § 4 that arbitration be in the district in which the petition for an order directing arbitration was filed.
|
|||||
| Titterington v. Barnhart, No. 05-2676,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a social security disability claimant suffered from dizziness and fainting, under 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 405(g) and 423(d), substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that the claimant could perform full-time sedentary work because the evidence supported the ALJ's diagnosis of cough-induced syncope.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nunez, No. 05-1637,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 216-month sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute was reasonable given that his multiple sclerosis did not prevent him from distributing 220 kilograms of cocaine over a 3-year period and shorter state sentences did not deter him from almost continual involvement in illegal drug distribution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Thomas, No. 05-1588,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence at the bottom of guidelines range for illegal reentry was reasonable because the offenses were widespread, repeated, and calculated and the district court satisfied its 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) obligations by finding that extensive theft convictions required a lengthy term and that reduced mental capacity did not excuse defendant's actions.
|
|||||
| United States v. Weaver, No. 05-1743,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in imposing on appellant a two-level sentence enhancement for receipt of multiple bribes under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2C1.1(b)(1) because the payments were made intermittently to influence more than one act by appellant, the payments varied in amount and delivery method, and appellant performed multiple acts.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
