 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cosgrove v. Kan. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., No. 05-3278,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was not clear on the face of the complaint whether Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-515(a)'s or 60-523(a)'s limitations period applied and 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915 could not serve as a fact finding process, the district court erred in dismissing as time-barred a prisoner's § 1983 complaint against state defendants for childhood sexual abuse.
|
|||||
| Maldonado v. City of Altus, No. 04-6062,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that Hispanic employees who were required to speak English at work presented enough evidence to survive a city's motion for summary judgment on their claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and under 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1981 and 1983, and it reversed the district court's judgment dismissing those claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, No. 04-6333,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to resentencing because the enhancement of his sentence based on drug quantity and possession of a dangerous weapon, facts not admitted or proven to a jury, was constitutional Booker error that was not harmless given the alternative sentence that was lower than the mandatory guidelines sentence actually imposed.
|
|||||
| United States v. McKinney, No. 05-3070,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant occupied an apartment more frequently that two other people, that people were seen coming and going from the apartment on numerous occasions, and that a gun police found in the apartment was located 10 to 12 feet from drugs was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1)(A).
|
|||||
| United States v. Smith, No. 04-6301,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to resentencing because the calculation of his base offense level based on judge-found facts concerning drug quantity was constitutional Booker error and the error was not harmless given the alternative sentence that was lower than the mandatory guidelines sentence actually imposed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tamayo, No. 04-2307,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court ordered the jurisdictional dismissal of an inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 claim, which was not filed in the district where he was confined at the time of filing, rather than transferring it because there was no merit to an equal protection claim that his deportable alien status subjected him to a more severe sentence than a citizen.
|
|||||
| Vigil v. City & County of Denver, No. 04-1414,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of a city and a county because a citizen's §§ 1983, 1981 claims were time-barred; by his own admission, the citizen showed that he had knowledge of the intelligence files kept on him by the city as early as 1998, but he did not file suit until 2003, more than two years after his claims accrued.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
