 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cook v. City of Phila., NO. 05-4965,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an assistant district attorney allegedly used peremptory strikes against Black jurors, the Heck rule barred two inmates' claims under 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 because, inter alia, a holding declaring that the jury was purposefully improperly empaneled would call into question the validity of one inmate's conviction.
|
|||||
| Fernando v. AG of the United States, No. 03-1022,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ's exercise of his discretion not to permit voluntary departure on the ground that the alien's application was not made in good faith and his testimony lacked credibility did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, so the decision was not reviewable by the court under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229c(f).
|
|||||
| Fleming v. Giant Foods, Case NO: 04-4614; NO: 05-2372,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's petition to show cause to vacate dismissal order, entered pursuant to a settlement agreement, was properly denied. District court did not usurp workers' compensation judge's authority under 77 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1000.5 by approving settlement agreement, which covered, among other claims, claims under Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act.
|
|||||
| United States v. Baskerville, No. 05-3633,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence of 100 months' imprisonment reimposed upon defendant following his guilty plea to possession of counterfeit currency and being a felon in possession of firearm was affirmed; district court satisfied 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors by considering grounds asserted by defendant for further reduction, seriousness of crimes, and criminal history.
|
|||||
| Vernon v. AG of the United States, No. 05-2934,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In view of the complete bar to naturalization of aliens convicted of aggravated felonies at any time under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(f)(8), alien's firearms conviction rendered him unable to establish that he was prima facie eligible for naturalization as veteran of armed forces under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1440; thus, court was unable to grant him citizenship.
|
|||||
| In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., CASE No. 04-3352,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer did not breach its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing where the employee did not point to any allegedly oppressive or underhanded tactics used by the employer to thwart the spirit of the agreement, and the subject at issue, whether the employer could block the exercise of employee stock options, was covered by the contract.
|
|||||
| United States v. Miller, No. 05-3748,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because even if drug quantity finding was excessive and defendant's offense level should have been lower, USSG § 4B1.1(b)(C) required increasing offense level to 32 as statutory maximum was 20 years, and application of acceptance of responsibility adjustment yielded same offense level employed by district court.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
