 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Al C. Rinaldi, Inc. v. Bach to Rock Music Sch., Inc., Case No: 06-2354,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly construed a consent order's terms and did not abuse its discretion in denying motion seeking entry of civil contempt order against appellee, arising from its alleged violation of order. Consent order limited appellee's advertising activities with regard to specified media, but it was silent as to appellee's use of Internet.
|
|||||
| Banks v. Labella (In re Frederick H. Banks), NO. 06-1847, NO. 06-1851, NO. 06-1852,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A summary affirmance was entered in a Chapter 7 debtor's case because he presented no substantial questions on appeal. Bankruptcy court properly sua sponte dismissed three adversary cases that the debtor had filed, arising from post-petition conduct, because "related to" jurisdiction did not exist under 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1334, 157, as to those claims.
|
|||||
| Lnu v. AG of the United States, No. 06-2685,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aliens' petition for review was denied. Substantial evidence supported IJ's finding that they failed to meet their burden of showing their eligibility for asylum, for withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT. Prior incidents showed that aliens were crime victims, not that lead alien was persecuted in Indonesia due to her Chinese ethnicity.
|
|||||
| Miles v. Aramark Corr. Serv. at Curran Fromhold Corr. Facility, No. 05-5567,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate failed to show that district court and magistrate erred when entering pretrial orders in his civil rights suit. Judgment as matter of law was properly entered against him. Inmate received kosher meals once he followed prison procedures for requesting them. He failed to prove his retaliation claim. He was not denied access to prison library.
|
|||||
| Seawright v. Greenberg, No. 05-5295,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An administratrix's post-removal amendment of complaint to delete her federal claims did not deprive district court of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1331 federal question jurisdiction over her suit. Suit was properly dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It was facially apparent that tort claims were time-barred under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5523(1), 5524.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rosenthal, No. 06-2158,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the insured's approach had roots in existing Pennsylvania case law, and his approach harmonized the law with respect to the statute of limitations involving uninsured and underinsured claims, inter alia, the appellate court applied the date-of-settlement approach to the insured's claim, and concluded that it was not time barred.
|
|||||
| Wells v. King, No. 06-2860,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1985(2), 1985(3), 1986, suit was itself dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B). because inmate's error claims lacked legal merit. Heck doctrine applied to inmate's claims, which challenged his criminal convictions. He would not be entitled to relief, even if claims were actionable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
