 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Albrecht v. Horn, Nos. 04-9005 and 04-9006,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the prisoner's conviction became final before the Supreme Court's decision in Mills v. Maryland, which established the unconstitutionality of ambiguous jury instructions concerning whether mitigating circumstances had to be found unanimously, the prohibition against retroactive application of new rules of constitutional law barred relief.
|
|||||
| Bacon v. Minner, NO. 06-3594,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 1983 suit was properly dismissed; the prison classification system did not violate the Due Process Clause, allegations of racially discriminatory impact did not state an Equal Protection Clause claim, and claims regarding a reduction in recreation time and prison lighting patterns did not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation.
|
|||||
| Chapman v. AICPA, No. 05-5025,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the employee presented no evidence that white employees with similar performance were promoted or retained and no evidence of racial bias or hostility, he failed to show that his termination was for failure to meet performance requirements as stated by the employer was pretextual; summary judgment under § 1981 was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Howell v. PPL Servs. Corp., No. 05-5074,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee who claimed that he was wrongfully discharged for having complained about alleged violations of federal law at his employer's nuclear power plant did not adequately allege that he was terminated in violation of Pennsylvania public policy. An ADEA disparate treatment claim failed absent a showing of pretext.
|
|||||
| In re Machne Menachem, Inc., No. 05-5425,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court agreed with district court's determination that debtor's orchestration of the purchase of claims outside the plan of reorganization undermined critical confirmation requirements; in particular, debtor's vote manipulation by the gerrymandering of classes undermined 11 U.S.C.S. § 1129(a) and district court's holding was affirmed.
|
|||||
| In re Walsh, No. 06-4792,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former servicemember's mandamus petition and related motions for relief were denied. He had other legal options available to him to challenge orders issued by district court in his civil suit. Appeals court was wrong forum in which to seek relief under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 3771, 1514. 3rd Cir. R. 4.1 applied only to appeals, not to mandamus petitions.
|
|||||
| Lubis v. AG of the United States, No. 05-5440,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indonesian alien who claimed persecution based on membership in Kontras human rights organization was properly denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because he gave inconsistent accounts of his beating, did not know what Kontras' name meant, and fabricated allegations that his family had received death threats from his assailants.
|
|||||
| Napoleon v. AG of the United States, Nos. 05-3280, 05-5449,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(D), appeals court lacked jurisdiction over alien's claims. Alien, who was removable under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), had not raised legal or constitutional issues in his petition. Court could not review BIA's orders denying a reconsideration motion and motion to sua sponte reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
|
|||||
| Qiu Long Chen v. AG of the United States, No. 05-5008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the alien had already submitted fraudulent documents, he had the burden of persuading the factfinder that his additional evidence was credible. The alien failed to authenticate or otherwise corroborate a second X-ray; thus, substantial evidence supported the IJ's conclusion that the alien's testimony was not credible.
|
|||||
| Tex. E. Transmission, LP v. Perano, Case No: 05-1720,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A preliminary injunction in favor of a pipeline easement holder and against a landowner was affirmed because under Pennsylvania law, it was not error to find that 25 feet on either side of the pipelines was reasonable and necessary for the right of way when the width had not been specified.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
