 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Trackwell v. United States Gov't, No. 06-3003,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no waiver of sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4) and the court lacked jurisdiction over a citizen's complaint against the U.S. Supreme Court and its Clerk; however, sovereign immunity did not bar the exercise of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1361, but neither the Court nor the clerk was an "agency" under § 1361.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lake, No. 06-3140, No. 06-3141,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court had to set aside the circumvention convictions under 15 U.S.C.S. § 78m(b) where the district court erred when it denied the officers' request to instruct the jury on what disclosure was required by the SEC and it was error for the court to abdicate its responsibility in that regard and let opposing counsel argue their competing theories.
|
|||||
| United States v. Yeomans, No. 06-1037,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed where the questioning of defendant about drugs did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the questioning did not unreasonably extend the length of the detention, and the detention and search of defendant and the vehicle were justified on the ground of officer safety.
|
|||||
| King v. Keller, No. 06-3214,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in the district court's decision to dismiss a former wife's complaint against various government employees and her former spouse's attorneys for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief, or in imposing sanctions to prevent plaintiff from pursuing other unwarranted claims in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
|
|||||
| Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Engida, No. 06-1115,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision to deny preliminary injunctive relief in a Lanham Act case was affirmed because the record showed that the district court doubted the strength of a tobacco company's case and the company did not show that it would suffer irreparable harm or that any harm it would suffer would outweigh the harm to a small business owner.
|
|||||
| Mariposa Farms, LLC v. Westfalia-Surge, Inc., No. 05-2344,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied the corporation's motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 despite its own acknowledged error in admitting the expert's testimony where given that another expert testified as to causation, and that his testimony was supported by other witnesses, the denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Snow v. Sirmons, No. 02-7027,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition, raising Brady and ineffective assistance of counsel issues, was affirmed because, although court had severe reservations as to trial counsel's failure to call three witnesses whose testimony would have supported inmate's innocence, court was not convinced that their absence prejudiced inmate.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
