 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Evans v. FRB of Phila., No. 05-2472,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dismissed employee's appeal from judgment entered in her Title VII action for failure to request and file trial transcript under Fed. R. App. P. 10(b), 3(a)(2) because court could not assess whether jury's verdict was supported by evidence without transcript and lack of transcript prevented intelligent review of instructions.
|
|||||
| Guifarro v. United States, No: 04-4694,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in concluding that plaintiff's negligence defeated FTCA claims because record supported district court's finding that any negligence on part of government driver did not equal or exceed plaintiff's negligence in crossing against signal in disregard of oncoming traffic and failing to see government vehicle.
|
|||||
| Uniontown Hosp. v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local Union No. 491, No. 05-1403,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an arbtration award was rationally derived from an agreement between the parties, as well as the context of the agreement, and the arbitrator did not rely solely upon his own brand of industrial justice, there was no basis to vacate the award.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gomez-Fonseca, No: 05-2278, No: 05-2302,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentence that coincided with the applicable guideline range did not somehow change the guidelines back into a mandatory sentencing scheme; the district court properly considered the factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), and defendant's sentence was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hackett, No. 05-1218,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied where police were clearly justified in investigating because evidence at suppression hearing established that defendant was driving with an expired Pennsylvania registration plate on his car, and computer check revealed that plate had been issued for a car other than the one defendant was driving.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reynolds, No: 04-3183, No: 04-4264,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendants' conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base because, inter alia, the single conspiracy alleged in the indictment was proved at trial based on evidence regarding the organized drug operation, the common goal among the conspirators, and cooperation between the street sellers.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sargeant, No: 05-1593,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence imposed upon defendant's guilty plea to firearms charges was affirmed because district court considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, defendant did not identify any § 3553(a) factor that would make his sentence unreasonable, and sentence was five years less applicable statutory maximum to which he was exposed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tinsley, No. 04-4245,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's counsel may have been called as a witness to describe having seen, handled, and discussed a similar gun in the possession of defendant's girlfriend four to five years prior to the charged offenses, the district court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying defendant's counsel.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
