 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chavarria v. Gonzalez, No. 04-1223,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the BIA mischaracterized the nature and degree of the threats a Guatemalan citizen faced and understated the effect these threats had, its factual findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The BIA's decision was reversed pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a), and the citizen's petition for review was granted.
|
|||||
| Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Sea Phoenix, No. 05-1837,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a consignee alleged shipment damage, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) limited defendants' liability to $ 500 per package because COGSA governed the transaction, the fair opportunity doctrine had no place in the application of COGSA, and the consignee did not declare a higher value and have that value inserted in the bills of lading.
|
|||||
| Okocci Remoi v. AG , NO. 04-3685,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's appeal from denial of § 2241 habeas corpus petition was converted to a petition for review under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252 and denied. BIA properly concluded that alien's conviction under former N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-3b (1995) constituted aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43)(F) for removal purposes. No due process violation was shown.
|
|||||
| Ridley v. Smith, No. 04-4273,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition was properly dismissed because although his claims fell squarely within those properly raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241, it was undisputed that the inmate failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his § 2241 petition in the district court.
|
|||||
| Zavecz v. Yield Dynamics, Inc., NO. 05-2232,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where shareholder was seeking attorneys' fees incurred defending against corporation's counterclaim for breach of contract under a contractual fee-shifting provision and the counterclaim was voluntarily dismissed pursuant to a settlement of the case, under Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(2) there was no prevailing party for purposes of attorneys' fees.
|
|||||
| Delaware Nation v. Pennsylvania, No. 04-4593,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Delaware Nation's claim to certain land under the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1799, 25 U.S.C.S. § 177, was properly dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) when there was no tribal land; aboriginal rights to land were extinguished by a 1737 purchase and a subsequent land grant was to a chief in his individual capacity.
|
|||||
| United States v. Kossak, No. 05-2424,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress documents he turned over to Government on advice of his attorney was properly denied because Government's conduct did not constitute Fifth Amendment Due Process violation as there was no indication that Government extorted information from attorney or obtained privileged information.
|
|||||
| United States v. Shelton, No. 05-1243,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court vacated defendant's sentence because Government's statements at sentencing and resentencing violated both letter and spirit of plea agreement as they advocated higher base offense level than one stipulated to in plea agreement, contrary to what defendant reasonably understood terms of agreement to be when entering plea of guilty.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stewart, No. 05-2184,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to meet his burden demonstrating intentional delay in bringing charges against him, failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in selecting an anonymous jury, and failed to show there was insufficient evidence to support his 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1), § 846 convictions. Thus, his conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
