 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bartelli v. Galabinski, No. 06-1545,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Most of inmate's § 1983 claims were properly dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Prison grievance procedures did not confer any substantive constitutional rights on him. Only one prison employee was personally involved in alleged constitutional violations. Inmate's retaliation claim against that employee failed as matter of law.
|
|||||
| Bartelli v. Jones, No. 06-1326,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), two legal claims asserted by prisoner. Hearing examiner's alleged violation of prison grievance procedures did not violate prisoner's constitutional rights. Prisoner's remaining § 1983 claims were time-barred under two year time limit found in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524.
|
|||||
| Bartelli v. Nagy, No. 06-1311,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on an inmate's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims because the statute of limitations on the inmate's claims was two years pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524, and the inmate knew or should have known of his alleged injuries more than two years prior to filing this complaint.
|
|||||
| Bartelli v. Romanowski, No. 06-1309,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly dismissed a prisoner's conspiracy-based retaliation claim under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Prisoner did not have constitutionally protected interest in obtaining skilled work at prison. Second retaliation claim asserted in § 1983 suit was time-barred under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524's two year statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Bray v. Pharmacia Corp./Pfizer, Inc., No. 06-2038,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly entered against a terminated employee in her employment discrimination suit. The employee's state law tort claims failed as a matter of law. She was barred from asserting claims under Title VII, ADA, and ADEA because she had not filed charges with the EEOC within 300 days after last alleged discriminatory act occurred.
|
|||||
| Carr v. Gillis Associated Indus., No. 06-2489,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ladder manufacturer was properly granted summary judgment in products liability suit. Undisputed facts showed that ladder was not defective at time it left manufacturer's control and that warning label was adequate. The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting new legal theory that was untimely raised in summary judgment response.
|
|||||
| Fox v. Herzog Heine Geduld, Inc., No: 06-1333,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA because merger of stock ownership plans of two corporate defendants did not result in a loss to the plan as the challenged transaction did nothing to jeopardize employees' benefits.
|
|||||
| Geatti v. AT&T, NO. 06-2704,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's appeal from order granting summary judgment to former employer as to his employment discrimination claims was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because his error claims lacked legal merit. District court properly analyzed employee's claims. Employee did not show discriminatory animus or that he qualified for promotion.
|
|||||
| Gunawan v. AG of the United States, No. 05-4304,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was properly denied asylum because the four incidents that she described did not rise to the level of persecution but were isolated criminal attacks that did not appear to have been motivated by the alien's ethnic or religious background, the alien described her injuries as relatively minor, and she never reported the incidents to the police.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
