 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baer v. Chase, No. 05-2425,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court entered summary judgment for script consultant as to his quantum meruit claim. District court erred in concluding that letter that consultant sent to producer was not "provided service" for statute of limitations purposes. Regardless of whether it provided value to producer, letter constituted the last service rendered by consultant.
|
|||||
| Couden v. Duffy, No. 04-1732,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in granting summary judgment based on facts that were not considered in the light most favorable to the family members who filed constitutional and other claims against law enforcement officials. Under such facts, law enforcement officers were not entitled to qualified immunity regarding their seizures of the family.
|
|||||
| Derrickson v. Meyers, No. 04-4497,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant was properly denied relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(d)(1) because state court held that appeal of robbery charge reinstatement lacked merit, so ruling that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise issue was not unreasonable application of Strickland as counsel could not be ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claim.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 05-3533,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a claimant sought disability insurance benefits, under 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 405 and 423, substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work because, inter alia, the ALJ sufficiently set forth reasons for giving no weight to a non-examining expert's testimony.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bonner, No. 05-1091,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err by refusing to give curative instruction or declare mistrial in response to government's improper remarks because remarks represented six lines of closing argument that spanned 19 pages of transcript, district court twice instructed jury that questions, objections, statements, and arguments of counsel were not evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pena, No. 05-3199,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 60-month sentence was affirmed on appeal because he failed to show that it was unreasonable. District court had determined applicable federal sentencing guidelines range arising from defendant's 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, guilty plea. It properly considered, discussed, and applied 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors to defendant's case.
|
|||||
| Watkins v. Holt, No. 05-3566,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed inmate's habeas corpus petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241, challenging loss of statutory good time, because at time he filed petition, he had not exhausted available administrative remedies, and they remained unexhausted throughout pendency of his petition.
|
|||||
| Fernandes v. AG of the United States, NO. 05-4205,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) , May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied review of BIA's denial of alien's motion to reopen proceedings because alien had not shown that BIA abused its discretion in failing to reopen; motion did not mention any pending labor petition filed by alien's employer on alien's behalf and alien made no other argument addressing how BIA erred.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. Carroll, NO. 04-9012,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied defendant's motion to recall mandate because his reason for recalling mandate amounted to little more than need for more time to prepare his certiorari petition to United States Supreme Court and, as such, plainly failed to meet standard for recalling mandate; defendant could seek stay of execution from Supreme Court.
|
|||||
| Roach v. SCI Graterford Med. Dep't, NO. 05-5218,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. 1915(e)(2)(B), court dismissed inmate's appeal from grant of summary judgment to prison officials on inmate's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claim because inmate did not exhaust his administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a) by properly appealing time-bar rejection of grievance.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
