 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blay v. Estep, No. 05-1280,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A habeas petitioner was denied a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 after the district court held that his petition was time barred under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d) because the district court's conclusions were not debatable.
|
|||||
| Heuser v. San Juan County Bd. of County Comm'rs, No. 05-2011,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' appeal from the dismissal of their complaint was dismissed because it was undisputed that under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1341 the property owners had a plain, adequate, and complete remedy to correct the allegedly erroneous decision regarding their property classification since their § 1983 claims could have been brought in state court.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Kraft Pizza Co., No. 04-1090,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's appeal of an award of sanctions for his employer and against the employee's attorney was dismissed because the employee's vague and unsubstantiated argument that the award somehow harmed him did not satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite of standing.
|
|||||
| Robbins v. Wilkie, No. 04-8016,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals affirmed district court's judgment finding that BLM employees were not entitled to summary judgment on a property owners' claims alleging that they violated the RICO and his rights under the Fifth Amendment when they engaged in acts designed to harm his interests after he refused to grant the BLM a right-of-way across his property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
