 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cormier v. City of Topeka, No. 06-3130,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly relied on the well pleaded complaint rule to evaluate federal jurisdiction and correctly concluded that there was no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1331 over the owner's claims since the owner's issues concerned the laws and regulations of the state, county, and city, not federal laws or regulations.
|
|||||
| Frazier v. Ortiz, No. 06-1286,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed without prejudice a pro se prisoner's 136-page complaint against 51 defendants for failing to file a short and plain statement of his claims; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) did not establish a floor but a ceiling--the complaint could be no more than a short and plain statement.
|
|||||
| Georgacarakos v. United States, No. 06-1223,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although technically speaking the district court did not lack jurisdiction over an inmate's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, it lacked authority to issue the requested relief under the mandate rule because a prior appellate opinion and mandate covered the inmate's arguments, and the district court had no authority to re-examine its final decision.
|
|||||
| Harrington v. Reid, No. 06-1016,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate, whose 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition was denied, was not entitled to a COA pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) because district court's resolution of his ten claims, which alleged denial of his rights to a fair trial and due process, was not reasonably subject to debate, and the claims were not adequate to deserve further proceedings.
|
|||||
| Martin v. Rios, No. 06-1420,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g), was a felony involving the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm under 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B). Accordingly, the inmate, who was serving a sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3621(e)(2)(B).
|
|||||
| Okla. Chapter of the Am. Acad. of Pediatrics v. Fogarty, Nos. 05-5100 & 05-5107,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396a(a)(30) did not create a private right of action enforceable by plaintiffs. Thus, the district court erred when it held that the state agency and the officials violated 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396a(a)(30)(A), and in turn granted injunctive relief in favor of the state agency and the officials based upon that purported violation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Aguayo-Gonzalez, No. 05-2349,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's request for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 was reasonable where defendant failed to accept responsibility before trial, and his contesting of the third count made it reasonable to differentiate his sentence from that of a defendant who had accepted responsibility on all counts.
|
|||||
| United States v. Castro-Portillo, No. 05-5141,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence because defendant failed to meet his burden of showing the challenged detention was illegal under the Fourth Amendment since the search warrant issued for the house carried with it the limited authority to detain defendant as an occupant during the search of the house.
|
|||||
| United States v. Diaz, No. 05-2348,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction and sentence of defendant were affirmed because reasonable jury could have concluded that defendant's truck leasing company was sham business involved in illegal activity and that defendant knew marijuana distribution was planned. The entire amount of marijuana seized was within conspiracy's scope and reasonably foreseeable to defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Martinez-Macias, No. 05-3243,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: U.S. Supreme Court holding that a state offense constituted a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act only if it proscribed conduct punishable as a felony under that federal law expressly abrogated the appellate court's previous interpretation of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Consequently, defendant's case was remanded for resentencing.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
