 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. Golder, No. 06-1112,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in dismissing a prisoner's complaint for failure to exhaust his Equal Protection Claim as required by the PLRA; the prisoner expressed an intent to assert a veteran-specific policy in his accusation of discriminatory practice and unequivocally alleged discrimination based on veteran status later in the grievance process.
|
|||||
| Grady v. Estep, No. 06-1106,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State prisoner was not entitled to COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 to challenge denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition because the state sentencing court's enhancement of the prisoner's sentence based upon his prior convictions was constitutionally permissible under Apprendi and, therefore, counsel was not ineffective for failing to object.
|
|||||
| Green v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, No. 05-6297,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment against an employee in her § 1983 action, in which she claimed retaliation for exercise of her First Amendment rights, was affirmed because by making arrangements for a client's confirmation drug test without consulting her supervisors, the employee did not speak or act in her capacity as a citizen, but as a government employee.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Booher, No. 06-6171,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After review of a prisoner's brief, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court's disposition, and the record on appeal, the court found nothing that met the standard for the grant of a COA from the district court's denial of the prisoner's § 2241 petition challenging the loss of earned credits.
|
|||||
| Lowry v. Honeycutt, No. 06-3136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it dismissed a state inmate's action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that a warden and prison guard violated his rights when they forced him to undergo a medical examination and charged him with violating Kan. Admin. Regs. § 44-12-314, because there was some evidence that the inmate committed sodomy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Adams, No. 04-4273,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not commit plain error during defendant's trial on charges alleging that he committed multiple drug offenses when it added three questions pertaining to sentencing to the verdict form and instructed jury to answer those questions if they found that defendant committed a crime that required consideration of the questions asked.
|
|||||
| United States v. Guerrero, No. 06-3123,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's consent to the search of his car was voluntarily given where he testified that his gesture was intended to let the deputy know that he could search the car, and a reasonable man in his shoes would have felt free to leave or deny the deputy's request. Thus, the court properly decided not to suppress the evidence found in the car.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ramirez, Nos. 06-4153 and 06-4154,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) provided no basis for the inmate's requested relief since it did not apply to a criminal proceeding, and given that an appeal of the inmate's conviction and sentence was pending, the district court had been divested of jurisdiction over related issues and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 could not circumvent a failure of jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rushin, No. 06-3090,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At trial on charges related to convenience store robberies, district court did not err in declining to give defendant's proffered instruction regarding eyewitness testimony because there was considerable corroborative evidence, including videotapes and wadded up money, and a more general instruction allowed the jury to properly evaluate evidence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
