 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fleetwood v. Barnhart, No. 05-6373,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's affirmance of denial of Social Security disability and SSI benefits was reversed and remanded because the ALJ failed to properly consider all of the claimant's impairments, and the ALJ's residual functional capacity findings were not based on substantial evidence and his assessment was conclusory and unsupported with reasoning.
|
|||||
| Foreman v. Franklin, No. 06-5186,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A COA was denied because a state prisoner was not entitled to relief on his double jeopardy claim where the offenses for which he was convicted required proof of distinct elements, any prosecutorial misconduct in the case did not result in a due process violation, and a lesser-included instruction was not required.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Jones, No. 06-6381,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Condemned prisoner was not entitled to stay of execution because he had unreasonably delayed his § 1983 challenge to Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol, and there was not a significant likelihood that a challenge to the protocol under the minimal requirements imposed by the Eighth Amendment on executions could succeed.
|
|||||
| Herrera v. Lufkin Indus., No. 04-8089,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that district court erred when it dismissed Hispanic employee's claim that his employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because its general manager of service operations, who worked in another state, made derogatory remarks about him and imposed requirements on him that were not imposed on non-Hispanic employees.
|
|||||
| Hurd v. Jordan, No. 06-6239,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court declined to issue a COA and affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus for the reasons set forth in the cogent analysis by a magistrate judge, which the district court adopted. The court was satisfied that the dismissal was well-supported by the record and the law.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., No. 05-2007,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The summary dismissal of a former employee's Title VII claim was affirmed because there was no mention of Title VII in her administrative charge and thus, it was not exhausted. A district court did not err in denying the employee's Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion because she improperly sought to blame the court for the jury's adverse decision.
|
|||||
| Pond v. Comm'r, No. 06-9002,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a 1040 Form was a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, whether a taxpayer's challenged forms were excepted from the requirements of 44 U.S.C.S. § 3512 could not be addressed because he did not include the forms in the record; a Code provision that provided a specific exemption amount defied his other argument.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dowling, No. 05-5210 and 06-5050,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal on the merits was dismissed because the district court, on partial remand, did not abuse its discretion in ruling that defendant's failure to file a notice of appeal within the ten-day deadline of Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) was not due to excusable neglect or good cause. Defendant did not ask his lawyer to file notice of appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Minners, No. 06-5092,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals refused to hear defendant's claim that he did not have effective assistance of counsel during proceedings where he pled guilty to leaving Indian country with intent to intimidate another and using firearm during crime of violence because claim required development of a factual record and was appropriate for collateral proceedings.
|
|||||
| Wadkins v. Estep, No. 06-1505,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's motion to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was denied where the letter included in the inmate's motion for authorization did not qualify as newly-discovered evidence because he had not met his burden of establishing that that evidence could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
