 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Bronson, NO. 06-1964,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's request for writ of mandamus to compel district court to reach immediate decision on respondents' motion to dismiss civil rights complaint was denied because management of docket was committed to district court's sound discretion, so it could not be said that right to ruling was "clear and undisputable" and there been no undue delay.
|
|||||
| Massaquoi v. Smith, NO. 05-4612,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In relinquishing custody of inmate to the BOP to serve his federal sentence before beginning to serve backtime for his parole violation, the state board of probation and parole was following the mandate of state law; because the inmate's appeal presented no substantial question, the judgment of the district court was summarily affirmed.
|
|||||
| Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Ezekoye, NO. 06-1728,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B), mortgagors' appeal from district court's order remanding mortgagee's ejectment action, which had been removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1443, was dismissed because mortgagors did not claim that they suffered deprivation of their civil rights based upon their race.
|
|||||
| Queen v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, NO. 05-5474,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court discerned no difference between the claims raised in inmate's current 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition and those raised in prior habeas petitions. Because the successive habeas petition constituted an abuse of the writ, the district court correctly dismissed the inmate's habeas petition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rinaldi, No. 04-2260,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate had to obtain COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 in order to appeal order denying Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) motion in § 2255 proceeding, and because inmate failed to make showing that reasonable jurists would find district court's assessment of claims raised in his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion debatable or wrong, court would not issue COA.
|
|||||
| Williams v. LaCrosse, No. 05-2568,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because former probationary state trooper failed to argue below that he was deprived of his liberty interest without procedural due process, he waived the only argument he raised on appeal, so district court's grant of summary judgment to supervisor on trooper's § 1983 claim was affirmed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
