 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crumpacker v. Kansas, Nos. 04-3266 and 05-3115,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was not subject to the policy maker exemption to Title VII where neither Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75- 5702, which required the employee's appointment by the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Human Resources with the consent of the governor, nor the facts compelled a finding that the employee was appointed by an elected official.
|
|||||
| Frazier v. Jordan, No. 06-1333,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 1983 complaint, alleging that during his pretrial detention he was denied a sufficient amount of food in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the Substantive Due Process Clause, was properly dismissed because claims against four defendants were time-barred under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102, and other defendants had not been served.
|
|||||
| Raiser v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 06-4066,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it dismissed lawsuit filed by student who claimed that a church and university violated his right to privacy when they stated that he had a "known psychiatric history." Those statements were made in defending a lawsuit the student filed against campus police and were protected by Utah's judicial proceeding privilege.
|
|||||
| United States v. Espinoza, No. 05-2121,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a prosecutor should not have asked a witness questions which required the witness to testify that defendant who was charged with violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 846 invoked his right to remain silent after he was arrested, court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction because district court properly instructed jury to ignore witness' answer.
|
|||||
| United States v. Glover, No. 06-5029,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth amendments, district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his admission that marijuana and a gun were his because the admission was volunteered in response to an officer's statement that defendant and his son would be arrested for their possession of those items. There was no questioning.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sullivan, No. 06-1408,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's post-judgment motion and pleadings on appeal were construed as a request for the required authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion which was denied because defendant failed to make the prima facie showing required by § 2255 as amended by the AEDPA.
|
|||||
| United States v. Townley, No. 05-8066,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements of the coconspirators that recounted statements of other coconspirators were properly admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and presented no concern under the Confrontation Clause, U.S. Const. amend. VI where the sole purpose of the majority of the statements was to promote the conspiracy's unlawful objectives.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
