 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cosby v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Case No.: 06-3157,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence of doctors' findings, school reports, evaluation forms, and testimony supported an ALJ's finding that a niece's diabetes mellitus and a learning disability did not meet or equal the severity of impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. P, app. 1; thus, the niece was properly denied child SSI benefits.
|
|||||
| In re Prudential Ins. Co., No. 06-3186,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court was allowed under the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2283, to enjoin insureds and a trustee from pursuing state court claims against an insurance company that were barred by a settlement agreement in a class action; the injunction was not barred by unclean hands, as adequate notice had been given in the class action.
|
|||||
| Kurek v. N. Allegheny Sch. Dist., No. 06-2276,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: School district was properly granted summary judgment in teacher's Rehabilitation Act action because district showed that teacher was not "qualified individual" as she could not work hours essential to function of job, and teacher offered no evidence to dispute that such workday was necessary to ensure adequate staffing and efficient operations.
|
|||||
| Marcavage v. Bd. of Trs. of Temple Univ. of the Commonwealth Sys. of Higher Educ., No. 05-5521,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court judge did not abuse her discretion by declining to disqualify herself under 28 U.S.C.S. § 455(a) because the judge's membership in a legal association for which defense counsel served as its president, and the fact that she received an award from the association, did not create a basis for questioning the judge's impartiality.
|
|||||
| Shakuur v. Costello, No. 06-1164,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's civil rights claim under § 1983 for an assault by a correctional officer was dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the inmate filed his action eight months after the two-year statute of limitations of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524 had expired, and the inmate did not follow grievance procedures to toll the limitation period.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 06-4389,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When district court failed to specify that an inmate and his co-defendants were jointly and severally liable for restitution in a sentence for, inter alia, armed robbery, the district court properly corrected the sentence pursuant to Fed. Crim. R. P. 36; the inmate's attempt to vacate his sentence should have been brought under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255.
|
|||||
| Eichorn v. AT&T Corp., Case No: 05-5461,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment dismissing claims brought by employees who alleged interference with ERISA benefits was proper because 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B) did not provide relief for that claim and the only relief available would have been in the form of back pay, which was not appropriate equitable relief within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(3).
|
|||||
| Hammer v. Cardio Med. Prods., No. 06-1533,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer's Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) motion to dismiss employee's discrimination action was properly granted because employee was personally responsible for her failure to comply with court orders, and employer suffered prejudice in scheduling multiple depositions and in expending costs to obtain court orders forcing compliance with discovery.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
