 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. Bureau of Prisons, NO. 05-4560,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's Bivens action against prison health services administrator failed because administrator was member of United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and was immune pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 233(a); inmate's exclusive remedy for injuries caused by USPHS member was against U.S. under Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2671 et seq.
|
|||||
| Counterman v. Warren County Corr. Facility, No. 05-1572,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prison, warden, deputy warden, and correctional officers were properly granted summary judgment on inmate's § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims alleging harassment and sexual assault by fellow trustee inmates because record would not support reasonable jury finding that officers were aware of any excessive risk to inmate's safety.
|
|||||
| Gavlock v. Clint Deniker WCO, No. 05-2910,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In § 1983 action filed against state game officials by member of group opposed to state game commission's elk management policies arising out of elk shooting by one member, appellate court agreed with reasoning of district court in granting summary judgment to officials and dismissing claims based on qualified immunity.
|
|||||
| United States v. McNeal, No. 05-2581,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's commitment to leadership development program (LDP) as juvenile was properly treated as sentence of "confinement" or "imprisonment" under USSG §§ 4A1.2(d)(2)(A), 4A1.1(b), (d), (e) because PSI, placement plan, LDP reports, and placement review made clear that he was not free to leave LDP for duration of his commitment.
|
|||||
| Jiang v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. 05-2638,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ improperly denied alien's asylum application because IJ's substantial evidence did not support IJ's adverse credibility determination; IJ did not find that documents were fraudulent, so IJ's use of them against alien's credibility amounted to speculation, which was insufficient to support adverse credibility determination.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. City of Trenton Police Dep't, NO. 05-4733,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action was dismissed as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B), because the claims against the police were untimely and the newspaper and writers were private parties and there was no indication that they acted under color of state law.
|
|||||
| Pension Transfer Corp. v. Beneficiaries under the Third Amendment to Fruehauf Trailer Corp. Retirement Plan No. 003 (In re Fruehauf Trailer Corp.), No. 05-1374,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in determining that a benefit plan amendment was a fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 548 because, inter alia, the program cost twice what an employee retention plan normally cost, the benefits inured substantially to corporate insiders, and it was reviewed by those who stood to gain from its approval.
|
|||||
| Potter v. New Jersey, NO. 05-2777,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse discretion in ruling that inmate failed to show any basis for granting postjudgment relief because district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appeal of state court conviction and would have declined to treat motion as seeking § 2254 habeas relief because he had not exhausted available state court remedies.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
