 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Miller v. Maurer, NO: 03-2947, NO: 04-4312,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of prison officials and medical personnel with respect to an inmate's claim under the 8th Amendment that he was denied proper medical treatment because the inmate failed to provide evidence of actions that rose to the level of deliberate indifference for his medical needs.
|
|||||
| O'Brien v. Valley Forge Specialized Educ. Servs., No: 04-4278, No: 04-4440,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's dismissal of parents' action alleging that school wrongfully seized assets found in their children's bank accounts was affirmed because children's bank accounts had not been seized, and parents' waived any challenge to district court's Rooker-Feldman analysis and its application of doctrine of res judicata.
|
|||||
| Singh v. AG of the United States, NO. 04-3720,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien alleged that he was persecuted by Indian police because of his political activities, the denial of his asylum application under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A) was upheld because he could not explain inconsistencies regarding, inter alia, whether he was a member of a different political party and whether he was taken into custody.
|
|||||
| Stephens v. Chairman of the Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, NO. 04-4344,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a prisoner received a misconduct before he was released on parole, the parole board's order granting parole had not been executed; thus, he did not have a liberty interest in his release and his procedural due process claims against the board, corrections employees, and doctor were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.
|
|||||
| Timbuleng v. AG of the United States, No. 05-2348,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not err in refusing to reopen an alien's asylum claim, as substantial evidence supported a finding that the alien was ineligible for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158(b)(1) and 1101(a)(42)(A); the alien's claims of isolated criminal acts targeting Christian services held in his home did not establish persecution.
|
|||||
| Todd v. Benning, NO. 04-1805,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's order dismissing inmate's civil rights claim against prison officials for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a), was vacated because there was insufficient evidence to find that the inmate failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
|
|||||
| Tucker v. Doe, No. 04-2364,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in dismissing plaintiff's action against state court clerk based upon absolute immunity because complaint alleged that clerk failed to file plaintiff's complaints or notify him of any deficiencies precluding their filing, and under N.J. Ct. R. 1:5-6(c), clerk's duty to file papers presented for filing was nondiscretionary.
|
|||||
| Tucker v. I'Jama, No. 04-1738,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in dismissing plaintiff's action against state court clerk based upon absolute immunity because complaint alleged that clerk failed to file plaintiff's complaints or notify him of any deficiencies precluding their filing, and under N.J. Ct. R. 1:5-6(c), clerk's duty to file papers presented for filing was nondiscretionary.
|
|||||
| Vujicic v. AG of the United States, No. 05-1332,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA was within its discretion in denying the aliens' motion to reissue its decision, denying the aliens' motion to reopen their case, because it was error on the part of the aliens' counsel in failing to properly change his address with the BIA that resulted in the failure to receive notice of the BIA decision.
|
|||||
| Xin Lin v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-1478,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA properly denied alien's motion to reopen because it was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) and alien offered nothing to support claim that BIA abused its discretion by failing to reopen proceedings because of subsequent births of his children in U.S. as changed personal circumstances in U.S. were not within § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)'s exception.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
