 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Almeida v. AG of the United States, No. 05-5544,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and could not review denial of alien's request for discretionary waiver of removal under former 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(c) (repealed 1997). BIA did not violate alien's due process rights. He was allowed to present arguments. BIA provided individualized review of his case based on record.
|
|||||
| Castillo v. FBOP FCI Fort Dix, NO. 06-3309,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from the dismissal of his § 2241 habeas petition was itself dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it lacked arguable basis in law or fact. Claims arising from loss of phone and visitation privileges were not cognizable under § 2241. He was provided all process that was due him in a prison disciplinary proceeding.
|
|||||
| Catanzaro v. Cottone, No. 06-4010,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A divorced husband's § 1983 suit against four judges was properly dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because he failed to assert actionable legal claims against them. Judicial immunity doctrine applied because acts alleged in complaint were taken by judges in their official capacities while presiding over husband's divorce proceedings.
|
|||||
| Catanzaro v. Jones, No. 06-4011,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed an ex-husband's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 complaint because it was not filed within the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and his action against the judicial defendants was barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity because it alleged acts performed by the judges within the scope of their judicial duties.
|
|||||
| Clark v. Vernon, No. 06-1028,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of plaintiff's § 1983 civil rights complaint was affirmed because several defendants were entitled to absolute immunity and plaintiff had not demonstrated how any additional discovery would have been necessary to answer the legal question of whether defendants were absolutely immune.
|
|||||
| Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contrs., Inc., No. 06-2199,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of the general contractor's claims of breach of contract and promissory estoppel was affirmed; because the submission expressly disclaimed the subcontractor's intention to be bound, it could not be an offer and the general contractor had alleged nothing that would render its reliance on the subcontractor's submission reasonable.
|
|||||
| Romero-Fereyros v. AG of the United States, No. 05-3925,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an alien presented a credible claim that he was coerced by immigration officials in violation of his due process rights, his petition for review was denied because he failed to show that he suffered any prejudice as a result of those alleged violations, given that he was clearly deportable due to his aggravated felon status.
|
|||||
| Smart v. Gloucester Twp. Mun. Corp., No. 06-1957,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reinstate appellant's complaint given his repeated failure to submit the fees necessary to allow the action to proceed and given his failure to support the request with grounds warranting reinstatement.
|
|||||
| Tjan Ting Widjaja v. AG of the United States, No: 05-3268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported IJ's denial of alien's request for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3). Because alien failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, arising from his alleged persecution in Indonesia due to his Chinese-Christian identity, he could not meet higher burden of proof required for withholding of removal.
|
|||||
| Toen Lik Tan v. AG of the United States, No. 05-4715,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision denying withholding of removal was upheld because substantial evidence supported the IJ's finding that the incidents cited by the alien as persecution were crimes rather than persecution on account of ethnicity and religion as required by 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a), and the alien failed to provide evidence compelling a contrary interpretation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
