Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
39 results for '* judge:"Circuit Judge Jordan"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2020-11-02
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1183
District court erred in dismissing habeas petition as untimely where recantations from three state witnesses and a fourth witness's confession to the crime presented sufficient evidence of actual innocence to warrant evidentiary hearing. Order of the district court vacated, case remanded. Gerald Howell appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The victim, Herbert Allen, was shot and killed on Christmas Eve, 1982. Although police recovered no physical evidence at the crime scene, appellant was
Publication Date: 2020-10-19
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-1145
District court erred in applying the two-level abuse of trust adjustment to the money laundering offense sentencing calculation, where defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering, and properly applied the gross receipts adjustment but failed to clarify whether the gross receipts that defendant received individually exceeded the million dollar threshold. Remanded for resentencing.
Publication Date: 2020-08-03
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0828
District court denied appellant's motion for resentencing where appellant was convicted under 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) for crack cocaine possession and moved for resentencing under the first step act and court found §841(b)(1)(C) was not modified by the fair sentencing act within the meaning of the first step act and a conviction under 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) was not a "covered offense" within the meaning of the first step act. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-07-06
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Food and Beverage
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0704
Where the district court found no evidence of a horizontal agreement among competitors to restrict supply, the district court did not err in applying the rule of reason to review of the alleged antitrust schemes. Judgment of the district court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-06-22
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0632
The court of appeals held that no extension of Bivensliability was warranted in this case, where federal defendants allegedly interfered with an inmate's right to marryas there were sound reasons to believe the legislature might doubt the efficacy or necessity of a damages remedyfor interfering with an inmate's right to marry. The appellate court affirmed.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2020-06-22
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0648
District court erred in dismissing plaintiff's distribution-based breach of contract claim for distributions that occurred in 2001 on statute of limitations grounds because the events prior to those distributions did not put him on inquiry notice. Reversed in part, affirmed in part.
Publication Date: 2020-05-11
Practice Area: Trade Secrets
Industry: Construction | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0474
The district court did not err in finding that plaintiff had standing to pursue a trade secret misappropriation claim under the state's Uniform Trade Secrets Act where it demonstrated lawful possession of a trade secret, even in the absence of ownership in the traditional sense. The appellate court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-03-16
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Pharmaceuticals | Retail
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0297
District court erred in holding that an anti-assignment clause in a distribution agreement between a wholesaler and affiliate of a drug manufacturer barred federal antitrust claims brought by appellants, who asserted antitrust claims obtained by assignment from wholesaler, because the anti-assignment provision did not invalidate wholesaler's assignment of antitrust claims or otherwise present a bar to appellants' standing to assert those claims against manufacturer since the antitrust claims relied on statutory rights. Reversed.
Publication Date: 2020-01-13
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0012
District court properly denied convicted appellant's petition for habeas corpus and her motion for F.R. Civ.P. rule 60(b)(1) relief for her late filing of objections to magistrate judge's report because the neglect in her late filing was manifest and she was not "in custody" on the charges she challenged because she received no penalty for them. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2020-01-13
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Federal Government | Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0014
District court properly found bankruptcy court had the constitutional authority to confirm a chapter 11 reorganization plan containing non-consensual third-party releases and injunctions because under the facts of this case, bankruptcy court's conclusion that the release provisions were integral to the restructuring were well-reasoned and well-supported by the record. Affirmed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read