 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bensouda v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-3821,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal, under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3), was denied where alien did not benefit from any presumption that he would have been persecuted in future because he did not claim that he had been persecuted in past, and he did not meet burden of showing that he would have been persecuted in future.
|
|||||
| Bright v. Westmoreland County, NO. 05-2005,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Murder victim's father failed to state substantive due process claim under state-created danger doctrine based on state actors' failure to protect victim from perpetrator. There was no affirmative state action involved in delay in perpetrator's probation revocation hearing; no affirmative duty to protect arose from expressions of intent to help.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Hendricks, NO. 04-1658,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although inmate's allegations that being denied more frequent access to the prison law library impeded his ability to prosecute several civil actions and appeals were sufficient to withstand initial review, his conclusory allegations, unsupported by other evidence, were insufficient to preclude summary judgment on inmate's First Amendment claim.
|
|||||
| Kerins v. Comm'r of SSA, No. 05-2272,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 405(g) supported the determination that applicant was not disabled because a doctor found that, while the applicant suffered from schizophrenia, he was not psychotic and the doctor did not indicate that the applicant was unable to work at other types of jobs.
|
|||||
| Santoso v. AG of the United States, No. 05-1982,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review was denied as to withholding of removal claim, under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3)(A), where there was no evidence that would have compelled court to conclude that the alien more likely than not would have been persecuted if removed to Indonesia because U.S. Attorney General upheld his burden of proving changed circumstances.
|
|||||
| Swandayani v. AG of the United States, No. 05-2845,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied because the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the finding that her asylum application was untimely, and substantial evidence supported the denial of her application for withholding of removal. The alien waived her CAT claim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reed, No. 05-1367,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant - a convicted felon - threw a gun out of the passenger window of a car and was convicted under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Because defendant presented no evidence to suggest that the driver had threatened to shoot anyone, inter alia, the district court did not err in declining to charge the jury on the defense of justification.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
