 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Riel v. City of Bradford, No. 05-4425,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sign ordinances of Bradford, Pa., Code chs. 125 or 178 were not unconstitutional under the First Amendment because the ordinances exempting signs identifying property related to the particular location or involved traffic and safety concerns; thus, the ordinances were content-neutral, and the detailed ordinances were not overbroad or vague.
|
|||||
| United States v. Primo, No. 06-1800,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's suppression motion because police acted in good-faith reliance on warrants as record contained no indicia of deliberate or reckless falsities in affidavits, district justice appeared to have performed his neutral and detached function, and affidavits contained sufficient indicia of probable cause.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sturdivant, No. 06-1551,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 262-month sentence for his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii), was affirmed because appeal waiver in plea agreement barred issues raised on appeal and enforcing terms of agreement would not work manifest injustice.
|
|||||
| Vazquez v. Ragonese, No. 05-1203,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 3, 2007, Decided , May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's order dismissing inmate's civil rights complaint without prejudice for failing to exhaust administrative remedies on all his claims was vacated because PLRA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a), did not contain "total exhaustion rule," so district court could have proceeded on exhausted claims and dismissed unexhausted ones.
|
|||||
| Bryant v. Samuels, No. 06-5087,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(a)'s language providing for supervised release as part of the sentence did not mean that the term of supervised release converts a portion of the term of imprisonment, as the inmate claimed; the BOP correctly interpreted the sentencing court's order, and the district court was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Ellison v. Rogers, Case No: 04-2314,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did nor err by dismissing a habeas corpus petitioner's constitutional claims pending exhaustion at the state level pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(b)(1)(A) because proof of his claims, including allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, was not within the trial record and would have required an evidentiary hearing.
|
|||||
| Oleksiak v. Barnhart, No. 06-1148,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order granting summary judgment to defendant employer on plaintiff employee's Title VII and ADEA claims was affirmed because the employee was clearly not among the highest qualified candidates for the promotion to Benefits Authorizer and the employee offered no evidence except her own conclusory statements and suppositions as proof.
|
|||||
| United States v. 487,825.00 in United States Currency, No. 06-3138,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court was entitled to insist on procedural regularity in a civil forfeiture proceeding and therefore did not abuse its discretion when it granted a default judgment after appellant failed to file a timely verified statement of interest in the forfeiture proceeding, as required by Supp. R. Certain Adm. & Mar. Cl. C(6)(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
