 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Black v. United States Post Office, NO. 05-3747,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was properly granted summary judgment on employee's hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and retaliatory discharge claims because complaint was untimely under 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-16(c) as employee filed it more than 90 days after she received notice of EEOC final action and employee was not entitled to equitable tolling.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Folino, Case No: 04-2705,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 2254 habeas corpus petition was properly denied. Although reasonable doubt jury instruction raised constitutional concerns, state court did not unreasonably interpret or apply federal law in upholding instruction. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance in failing to challenge instruction, given legal precedent upholding it.
|
|||||
| Davis v. United States Cong., NO. 05-5533,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 2241 petition was properly dismissed because his claims clearly embodied "essence of habeas corpus" as they attacked legality of his custody and sought to secure his immediate release and they challenged validity and imposition of his sentence, rather than manner in which it was being carried out, making them inappropriate for § 2241.
|
|||||
| Reese Bros., Inc. v. United States, No. 05-2135,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In order to be taxable under 26 U.S.C.S. § 4252(b)(1), charges for long-distance telephone services had to be based on both distance and elapsed transmission time. Taxpayer's telephone services did not fall within § 4252, thus, taxpayer was properly granted summary judgment on its refund claim for 26 U.S.C.S. § 4251(a)(1) excise taxes .
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
