 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ames v. Franklin, No. 04-6356,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where prisoner did not object to officer's testimony that prisoner was owner of pickup truck in which a baggie holding 30.1 grams of methamphetamine was found, and where it was revealed that the prisoner had jointly possessed methamphetamine with another before on several occasions, the evidence was sufficient to support the trafficking conviction.
|
|||||
| Curran v. Ami Fireplace Co., No. 04-1362,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals reversed district court's award of summary judgment in favor of employer on employee's claim alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act, because there were genuine issues of fact concerning whether employee's supervisors took prompt, appropriate action to protect her rights.
|
|||||
| Douglas v. Norton, No. 03-1407,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if federal employee's filing deadline had been equitably tolled to accommodate his error, which appeared to have been a good faith error, employee waited too long to file his administrative complaint. Because employee failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies, dismissal was warranted, but that dismissal had to be with prejudice.
|
|||||
| Haynes v. Level 3 Communs., LLC, No. 05-1218,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for a former employer was affirmed because an open door policy was too vague to constitute a contract or support a claim of promissory estoppel and the employer's oral statements that it was committed to equal opportunity in employment were general policy statements, not enforceable promises.
|
|||||
| Lowe v. Dinwiddie, No. 05-7077,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's request for a COA so that the inmate could obtain review of the denial of his § 2254 petition was denied because the district court properly determined that the petition was not timely when the petition sought to challenge a state court's decision made over 10 years before the petition was filed.
|
|||||
| Rutherford v. Denver Dist. Court, No. 05-1122,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A request for a certificate of appealability to challenge the denial of a habeas corpus petition was denied because an inmate did not exhaust state remedies under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(b)(1) where he did not raise his claim on direct appeal and first raised it in an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the Colorado Supreme Court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lee, No. 05-3071,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that defendant did not diligently pursue his claim that his conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1) was invalid because the U.S. Government did not prove he actively employed a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and it affirmed district court's judgment denying defendant's motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mann, No. 05-5069,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's request for a COA was denied because the district court adequately addressed all of defendant's claims for alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and found that they did not meet the Strickland standard, and upon review the court agreed. As such, defendant had not stated grounds for a COA to issue as required by 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253.
|
|||||
| United States v. Martinez, No. 04-2298,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A conviction for possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) was affirmed because there was a factual basis under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for defendant's plea where evidence summarized by a prosecutor permitted the inference that defendant knew that cocaine was in a car and that he intended to distribute it.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
