 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Martinez v. United States, No. 05-2212,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because petitioner's claims under his second habeas application were predicated on the same factual basis as his first application, the appellate court agreed with the district court that it was not required to consider the second application on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Alvarez-Perez, No. 05-2068,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1) to challenge the denial of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was denied because defendant did not show that his counsel performed deficiently in advising that there were no grounds for appeal and credibility findings that he did not instruct his counsel to appeal were not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fields, No. 05-2202,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A COA was denied to defendant because Booker did not apply on collateral review and because counsel's failure to predict Booker's constitutional and remedial holdings was not objectively unreasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lott, No. 04-6268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because any constitutional error in denying defendant counsel for the evidentiary hearing was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there was not a complete breakdown in communication, the district court's denial of defendant's motion for substitution of counsel was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Winsness v. Yocom, No. 04-4275,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals affirmed judgment that Utah resident who ran for governor and Utah resident who was charged with violating Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-601, statute that made it illegal to deface U.S. or any state flag, did not have standing to seek a declaration that § 76-9-601 violated U.S. and Utah Constitutions and injunction prohibiting enforcement.
|
|||||
| Bartee v. Michelin N. Am., Nos. 04-6015 & 05-6012,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limiting an employee's back pay award to the time between his reasonable accommodation request that the employer denied and his lawful termination was not an abuse of discretion because there was no causal link, as required by the ADA, between the violation and a request for damages through retirement.
|
|||||
| Essary v. Fed. Express Corp., No. 05-2091,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former employee raised for the first time on appeal in her Title VII action that she was fired in retaliation for complaining of sexual orientation discrimination, not gender discrimination, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer was affirmed because the employee failed to preserve her claim for review.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Edminsten, No. 05-6233,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court complied with 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A and properly dismissed a prisoner's retaliation complaint against the corrections employees for failure to state a claim because he failed to successfully challenge his disciplinary convictions in a habeas action before proceeding on the 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim.
|
|||||
| Price v. Reid, No. 04-1190,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which a state inmate filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254, because the inmate, who was proceeding pro se, submitted two petitions that were nearly identical after a magistrate judge told him to amend his original petition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sanchez, No. 04-4005,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sixth Amendment Booker errors did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings because defendant had not made a showing that on remand the district court would have likely imposed a significantly lighter sentence, and defendant did not demonstrate a complete breakdown of the sentencing process.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
