 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jilin Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Chertoff, No. 05-2788,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After extensive statutory analysis, appellate court held that the decision to revoke an approved visa petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1155 was left to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security; thus, district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to review this administrative decision under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
|
|||||
| N. Am. Dealer Co-Op v. Interstate Indem. Co., No. 05-1453,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants' breach of contract claim against an indemnity company was properly dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because company had legal right to cancel insurance policy by not renewing it. Although the contract was not a model of clarity, appellants failed to show that contract's "Cancellation of the Policy" provision was ambiguous.
|
|||||
| S. Freedman & Co. v. Raab, No. 05-1138,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company's bald allegations that corporate parties were citizens of certain states was insufficient to carry its burden of pleading the diversity of the parties. Nowhere in the complaint was the word "citizen" defined with reference to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332; dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Smallhorne v. AG of the United States, No. 05-1898,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA properly denied alien's motion to reopen because it was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); court would not consider alien's challenge to merits of removal order because challenge was made for first time on appeal and was not raised before district court in habeas petition, which had been converted to petition for review under Real ID Act.
|
|||||
| Sotovando-Cifuentez v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 05-1156,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA properly denied alien's motion to reopen because alien did not adequately account for the eight years that elapsed between the time that his appeal to the BIA was dismissed and the time he filed the motion; periods of unaccounted-for delay revealed a lack of diligence, and thus, the alien was not entitled to tolling.
|
|||||
| TWA v. Robinson (In re TWA), No. 05-2260,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because amended CBA that governed the employer/employee relationship was clearly intended only to forestall claims by future disabled employees and not to apply retroactively to those employees already receiving benefits, employer was properly ordered to make workers' compensation payments to employee.
|
|||||
| United States SBA v. Barrack, No. 04-4083, No. 05-1330,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motions to compel arbitration of U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) claims were properly denied. Subscription agreements that SBA was seeking to enforce did not contain arbitration provisions. SBA was not bound by arbitration provisions in appellants' partnership agreements because those agreements were separate, fully-integrated contracts.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez, No. 03-4420,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied counsel's motion to withdraw because defendant could challenge his sentence under Booker, and defendant's claim survived scrutiny under plain error review because, in imposing sentence, the district court treated the guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Perkins, No. 04-1166,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the fact that defendant's counsel did not analyze any of the issues covered by defendant in his appeal or the government in his Anders brief, because the issues raised on appeal were patently frivolous, defendant's judgment of conviction and sentence was hereby affirmed, and counsel was granted leave to withdraw.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rene, No. 05-1287,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not point to any legitimate claims raised by him that the district court failed to address, and it was clear that the district court gave an appropriately careful and individualized consideration of his case. The appellate court held that the sentence imposed was reasonable, and defendant's appeal was denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
