 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jules v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-2847,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's habeas corpus petition was treated as petition for review pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(d)(1), the court could not consider the alien's claim, that he could not be removed because he derived citizenship from his mother, because the alien had not exhausted his administrative remedies as to that claim.
|
|||||
| Prusky v. Aetna Life Ins. & Annuity Co., No: 04-4466; No: 4547,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an insurance dispute, where trustees of a profit sharing plan, the owner of several insurance policies, created a paper trail by continuing to fax transfer requests to insured, plan's losses from diminution in the cash value of insurance policies were not speculative and plan was entitled to damages for those losses.
|
|||||
| United States v. Groff, Case No: 05-1634,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was convicted of mail fraud and false statements charges arising from statements to the Small Business Administration concerning loans, was properly denied a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 given a sufficient showing of intent to defraud; delays due to continuances did not violate the Speedy Trial Act.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reaves, NO. 05-5040,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of petition for writ of audita querela challenging sentence was summarily affirmed. 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 was not rendered "inadequate or ineffective," thereby enabling prisoner to resort to audita querela, by mere fact that he could not meet stringent standards for authorizing filing of a second or successive § 2255 motion.
|
|||||
| Angrisani v. Capital Access Network, Inc., No. 05-1502,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court held that employee should have more fully investigated certain claims upon which his fraud claim rested. However, its grant of summary judgment was reversed because the question of whether the employee's investigation and reliance was reasonable presented a factual issue that was more properly left to the judgment of the jury.
|
|||||
| Castello-Diaz v. AG of the United States, No: 03-4457; No: 05-3166,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's application for suspension of deportation under former 8 U.S.C.S. § 1254(a)(1) (repealed 1996) was properly denied, as the alien did not meet the seven-year "continuous physical presence" requirement under the post-IIRIRA rule that issuance of an order to show cause stopped accrual of time toward that requirement.
|
|||||
| Mehboob v. AG of the United States, No. 05-1952,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because BIA's characterization of resident's offense obfuscated the distinction between 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3126(a)(1) and § 3126(a)(8), a distinction which could have been dispositive to determine whether his offense was a crime of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), the BIA's decision was remanded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
