 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Igwe v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., NO. 05-1621,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Beyond his own opinion that employer treated him wrongfully, employee offered no evidence to rebut the reasons employer provided to support its decisions; absent any evidence that would undermine the employer's reasons, the employee could not avert summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981, claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. Braun, No. 05-1402,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because district court's articulation of advisory nature of United States Sentencing Guidelines post-Booker was not inconsistent with its consideration, as required by Booker and Cooper, of applicable Guidelines range or its ultimate decision to sentence defendant within advisory range.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wright, No. 03-3764,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence following his guilty plea to bank robbery and other federal crimes was properly denied, as the inmate's counsel was not shown to have been ineffective for failing to file an appeal; an appeal could not have affected the inmate's mandatory consecutive sentences.
|
|||||
| Weisberg v. Riverside Twp. Bd. of Educ., NO. 04-4533,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was not disabled under ADA; his fatigue and forgetfulness that arose from head injury did not substantially limit his cognitive function, performing manual tasks, or working under 42 U.S.C.S. § 12102(2)(A) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). Co-worker's joke about employee's CAT scan did not violate employee's Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
