 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abreu v. Comm'r, NO. 05-3501,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court abused its discretion in dismissing claimant's action, seeking review of Social Security Commissioner's decision, for failure to effect timely service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) because claimant was proceeding in forma pauperis, and no person had been appointed to effect service on claimant's behalf in accordance with R. 4(c)(2).
|
|||||
| Daniels v. Corr. Med. Serv., NO. 05-4027,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prison hospital, doctor, and nurse were properly granted summary judgment on inmate's Eighth Amendment claim because they were not deliberately indifferent to inmate's medical needs; complaint against doctor and nurse was properly dismissed for failure to serve.
|
|||||
| Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Starlight Ballroom Dance Club, Inc., No. 05-1031,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insured dance club could not muster a meritorious defense under Pennsylvania law and because it was culpable in its reckless disregard for the proceedings in the district court, that court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to set aside the default judgment entered against the insured.
|
|||||
| Pickard v. United States, No. 04-2234,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court correctly denied the inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion where there was no Brady error since the inmate's claim was based on pure speculation of the materiality of the purported evidence, and the evidence that the prosecution failed to disclose was neither favorable to the inmate nor material to his defense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, No: 05-1261, No: 05-1870,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant claimed, inter alia, that the district court erred in adjusting his base offense level upward by twenty-three points based on the court's factual findings made pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. However, because Booker was not retroactively applicable to defendant's case, the district court was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Howard, No. 04-2262,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant had been on notice that the government might present telephone records at trial to support its drug conspiracy case, defendant's motion for a few trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, based on telephone records he obtained three months after trial, was properly denied because defendant was not diligent in obtaining the records.
|
|||||
| United States v. Kemp, No. 05-1224,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Leach, No. 04-3041,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court's judgment was affirmed because there were no non-frivolous issues to appeal. Defense counsel's motion to withdraw was granted.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mitchell, No. 05-2142,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Warrantless entry of defendant's residence and subsequent issuance of a search warrant were proper where police found a drop of blood on the steps while investigating a shooting. A statement by defendant's uncle claiming possession of ammunition that defendant was convicted of possessing was properly excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
