 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chandra v. AG of the United States, No: 05-3365,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dismissed alien's petition for review of IJ's denial of asylum because petition was untimely filed under INA § 208(a)(2)(B) and alien did not demonstrate circumstances that would excuse untimely filing, and even if petition were not untimely, alien failed to show entitlement to relief as his claims of religious persecution were not credible.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Abington Friends Sch., No. 05-1405,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court improperly granted summary judgment to a school and its employees in parents' ADA action for failure to accommodate their son's ADD. Parents were entitled to a motion for a continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) for discovery on the school's religious exemption under 42 U.S.C.S. § 12187, which was a mixed question of law and fact.
|
|||||
| Hammersmith v. TIG Ins. Co. , No. 05-3730,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Pennsylvania's choice-of-law methodology, a dispute over the timeliness of notice to an excess insurer of a personal injury claim was governed by New York law. The insurer was improperly awarded summary judgment given fact issues as to whether notice to the insurer was untimely and whether the insurer timely disclaimed coverage.
|
|||||
| Jin Hua Yang v. AG of the United States, No. 06-1477,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review was denied. Substantial evidence supported BIA's finding that alien failed to show that he would suffer future persecution because of his past opposition to China's family planning policy. Alien's evidence was insufficient to establish his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3).
|
|||||
| T & N Ltd. v. Computer Sales Intl, Inc. (In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc.), No. 05-2423,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Debtor desired, and the district court thought it ordered, a modification to the lease that was not apparent on the face of its order; thus, bankruptcy court erred in construing its order as having provided for proration of payments due under a master lease agreement and did not properly modify the lease under 11 U.S.C.S. § 365(d)(5).
|
|||||
| Tagayun v. Lever & Stolzenberg, NO. 06-3238,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred when it dismissed appellants' slander and defamation claims on the merits without first determining whether it had diversity jurisdiction over the suit and personal jurisdiction over appellees. The district court could not make a substantive ruling on the merits of the claims unless it had jurisdiction over suit and appellees.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia, No. 06-2025,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Below-guidelines 36 month sentence imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 illegal reentry offense was not unreasonable. Sentencing disparities arising from immigration "fast-track" program were not "unwarranted" for 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(6) purposes. District court gave careful, individualized consideration to defendant's case.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jennings, No. 05-4003,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant possessed a firearm in connection with his possession of narcotics with intent to distribute and sentenced him to the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g) because it sentenced defendant to the statutory maximum for the charged offense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mercado, No. 06-1746,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because the district court accurately calculated his sentencing range, including the application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1, decided not to depart downward under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, and reasonably decided not to grant a variance under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
