 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Melville v. AG of the United States, No. 05-4652,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of order of removal was denied where IJ's finding that alien's 1984 conviction was an aggravated felony stood because he made no argument whatsoever regarding his 1984 conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled dangerous substance, and alien was removable on that basis, under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
|
|||||
| Moss v. Potter, NO: 05-4021,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was properly granted summary judgment in employee's Title VII action where, even if employee could have established prima facie case for retaliation and discrimination claims, he provided no reason to believe that his suspension for violating a vehicle safety rule was pretextual because, inter alia, he admitted that he violated USPS rules.
|
|||||
| Singh v. AG of the United States, No. 05-2686,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) , April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of a BIA's decision, which denied his third motion to reopen removal proceedings as numerically barred under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), was denied where the alien presented no evidence of changed conditions in India that was unavailable to him at the time of his asylum hearing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rackley, No. 05-2052,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) , April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not violate U.S. Const. amend. V due process rights in denying continuance to respond to PSI's gain calculation for purposes of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1 following guilty plea under 18 U.S.C.S. § 201(b)(2); defendant had ample time to respond. Further, sentence and fine did not violate U.S. Const. amend. VIII.
|
|||||
| Vanguard Identification Sys. v. Goade, Case No: 05-1584,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The owner of a debtor corporation was properly granted judgment on a creditor's damages action, which was barred by the Pennsylvania statute of limitations because it was filed more than two years after the creditor had notice of the owner's negligent misrepresentation of the impact of the debtor's sale on the debtor's assets.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
