 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Durham v. Dep't of Corr., NO. 05-4568,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed former state inmate's claims because department of corrections was immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, as were officials to the extent they were sued in their official capacities, and state had not waived immunity under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(b).
|
|||||
| Nouri v. Pa. State Univ., No. 05-4328,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Leahy, Nos. 03-4490/4542/4560,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants had been retained to auction repossessed cars at highest price and reimburse banks, but with respect to 311 cars, defendants did not auction to highest bidder, but instead kept cars for their inventory, and misrepresented to banks that cars had sold at lower auction price, convictions for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 1344 were affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Whyte, NO. 05-2304,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion for permission to file nunc pro tunc motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) was affirmed, where appellant sought to challenge sentence; challenge should have been brought via 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255, not Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Appellant was required to obtain authorization from instant court before filing another 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion.
|
|||||
| Wisniewski v. Barnhart, No. 05-1921,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of SSDI under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 401-44, was reversed, where ALJ was incorrect in assertion that treating physician's conclusions were contradicted by consulting doctors, and consulting physicians did not have benefit of reviewing all treatment history in rendering opinions as to extent of disability.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
