 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Parkland Sch. Dist., No. 06-1560,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a student's § 1983 suit against a school district, a magistrate's questioning of the student during settlement discussions and the magistrate's alleged friendly greeting of defense counsel did not require recusal under 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 144 or 455(a), as the recusal motion was untimely and bias and prejudice were not established.
|
|||||
| Brubaker v. E. Hempfield Twp. , Case No: 06-2531,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner's takings claims were not ripe due to the lack of finality of the decision by the township with regard to accessory use of his property to house a communication tower, and his failure to pursue an action for inverse condemnation. Thus, owner's claims were unripe and the district court was ordered to dismiss them as such on remand.
|
|||||
| James v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., NO. 06-2937,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 1983 action alleging he received improper dental care in violation of the Eighth Amendment was properly dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because he merely disagreed with treatment provided by prison dentist and he had not alleged any facts implicating prison officials and administrators regarding his treatment.
|
|||||
| Mauro v. N.J. Supreme Court, NO. 06-3932,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arrestee's appeal of the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion did not address the rule's requirements, and there was nothing in the record that would support a conclusion that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner that was inconsistent with due process; arrestee's appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| McAleese v. Brennan, No. 04-1439,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas corpus petition was properly denied as untimely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) of the AEDPA because the inmate's parole denial was the factual predicate for his petition; while the inmate contended that the period did not begin until certain documents were released, the documents were supporting evidence and not the vital facts of his claim.
|
|||||
| Murphy v. Bendig, NO. 06-4307,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officers were properly granted summary judgment on appellants' § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim because first officer relied on his experience, training, knowledge of prior criminal activity in area, and lateness of hour, all of which were legitimate bases for reasonable suspicion to stop appellants' van, so stop was constitutional.
|
|||||
| Nnadika v. AG of the United States, No. 05-3915,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To the extent that an alien's habeas petition and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenged the denial of an asylee relative petition and did not directly implicate an order of removal, it was not subject to transfer to the court of appeals under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252 note of the REAL ID Act.
|
|||||
| Opdycke v. Stout, No. 06-1000,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a condominium resident's claims against a township and its departments and employees arose from the same underlying facts as a prior state court suit and would have been precluded in state court under the Entire Controversy Doctrine, N.J. Ct. R. 4:30A, the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1738, barred the claims in federal court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Haggart, No. 06-3357,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ten year sentence imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to 21 U.S.C.S. § 846 drug distribution conspiracy crime was affirmed. District court properly assessed two criminal history points based on reckless driving convictions that resulted in unsupervised probation terms. Points rendered defendant ineligible for relief under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(f).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
