 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Hamilton, NO. 06-4313,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's dismissal order was summarily affirmed because no substantial questions were presented for review. Public defenders were not "state actors" for § 1983 purposes with regard to their defense of prisoner during post-conviction relief proceedings. Prisoner's allegations did not show any basis for holding defenders liable under § 1983.
|
|||||
| Clay v. Dep't of the Army, NO. 06-2515,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's dismissal order was vacated because it committed a reversible error when it failed to adequately notify the parties that it was converting appellees' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal motion into Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 summary judgment motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Appellant was deprived of opportunity to complete record.
|
|||||
| Rhett v. Disman, No. 06-2903,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in dismissing pro se claimant's amended complaint under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and in refusing to allow further amendment because it was clear from original complaint, which was attached to amended complaint but not incorporated, that he was seeking review of denial of supplemental social security disability benefits.
|
|||||
| Sharp v. Astrue, No. 06-2619,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ's opinion did not describe in detail applicant's treatment history prior to the date of her alleged onset of disability, but the opinion did provide factual support for his findings; thus, appellate court was able to determine whether substantial evidence supported the holding that applicant was not disabled under 42 U.S.C.S. § 423(d)(1)(A).
|
|||||
| United States v. Gwinnett, No. 06-1766,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court exercised jurisdiction over defendant's appeal despite the appellate waiver in her plea agreement, but found that defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and, thus, waived her right to the present appeal; the court did not reach the merits of her remaining claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. Manuel, Case No.: 06-1767,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was upheld because the district court considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, and imposed a sentence below the advisory guidelines range; in addition, defendant's sentence was reasonable under Booker because the district court did not have the discretion to sentence him to a term lower than the statutory minimum.
|
|||||
| United States v. Shedrick, No. 04-2329,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Suggs, No. 04-2640,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant brought dye-stained money to the same check cashing agency shortly after two separate bank robberies, along with other corroborating evidence, was sufficient to convict defendant of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2113(a). Improper admission of certain testimony did not warrant a new trial.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vonsander, No. 06-2500,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because, while defendant contended that he did not sufficiently understand the plea, it was read to him by counsel twice and defendant stated under oath during his plea colloquy that he understood the charges against him and the terms of the plea.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
