 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Green v. Fornario, No. 06-2649,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former baseball pitcher was not entitled to recover attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1117(a) against owner who used the pitcher's name as part of his business. The owner had colorable defenses to misdescription and dilution under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a), (c)(2)(A) when the pitcher was not widely known and the business was not related to baseball.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. United States, NO. 06-3221,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition, which sought credit toward his federal sentence for time he served on state sentence, was properly denied because although federal sentencing court had authority under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(c) to adjust sentence for time served, sentencing court did not discuss § 5G at inmate's hearing.
|
|||||
| Mendez v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., NO. 06-3097,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from dismissal of § 1983 action against state department of corrections, prison health service provide, and two doctors alleging Eighth Amendment violation was dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) because inmate did not allege that doctors intentionally refused to provide treatment or failed to exercise medical judgment.
|
|||||
| Nara v. Frank, No. 05-4779,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an unusual case in which a plain error standard was applied due to the Commonwealth's delay in objecting to a magistrate's report and recommendation, an order granting a habeas corpus petition was affirmed because there was no plain error in the district court's conclusion that the inmate's guilty plea was accepted in violation of due process.
|
|||||
| Phippen v. Nish, NO. 06-4630,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal from the order dismissing his § 1983 civil rights complaint against warden and hearing examiner pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A was dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state claim because inmate failed to state due process claim or claim under Miranda and prison was not person under § 1983.
|
|||||
| United States v. Kononchuk, No. 06-2484,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government's sentencing appeal was sustained. Appeals court could not conclude that district court gave meaningful consideration to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3353(a) factors. It failed to respond to government's cogent objections and failed to explain why it imposed an extraordinarily lenient sentence after defendant pleaded guilty to 18 U.S.C.S. § 371 crime.
|
|||||
| Vanalt Elec. Constr., Inc. v. Selco Mfg. Corp., No. 05-5239/06-1434,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a contract case, manufacturer had to prove compliance with the notice requirement of 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2607, but that did not imply that the breach was incomplete until notice was given; district court erred in putting the burden of proving reasonable notice on the corporation, and its instruction was an incorrect statement of the law.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
