 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brou v. Abbott, No. 06-1326,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's request for a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 was denied where since the inmate's appeal of the denial of his Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(c) motion was dismissed as untimely, and he provided no argument why that disposition was in error, the inmate failed to exhaust his claims in state court.
|
|||||
| Kalule v. Gonzales, No. 05-9566,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of the dismissal of an asylum claim for untimeliness was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal was denied because the BIA gave specific reasons for finding that petitioner was not credible in his assertions that his father had disappeared and his brother had died.
|
|||||
| Leonard v. Sunset Mortg., Nos. 04-4310 & 05-4116,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor was reversed because there were issues of material fact whether a deceased independent contractor breached an agreement with defendant, and, if so, whether defendant had a duty to continue to make six more commission payments. A priori, the award of attorney's fees in plaintiffs' favor was also reversed.
|
|||||
| Montana v. Hargett, No. 06-1347,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because plaintiff prisoner only provided unsupported conclusory allegations of wrongdoing by prison officials and, thus, failed to show cause why he could not meet the requirement of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(a)(2) to submit a certified inmate account statement, his complaint was properly dismissed by the district court.
|
|||||
| Trujillo v. Bd. of Educ. of the Albuquerque Pub. Schs, No. 05-2305,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was not sufficient evidence on a public employee's duties to perform the analysis required by Garcetti v. Celebes for deciding if his speech was protected by the First Amendment, remand was required. District court had discretion to review an interlocutory order, and it was not bound by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)'s and 60(b)'s standards.
|
|||||
| United States v. Doe, No. 06-3156,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A decision to deny a downward departure was not reviewable where the district court had not suggested that it lacked the authority to do so; however, the reasonableness of the sentence was reviewable, but the court could not discern whether the district court considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)'s factors, and a remand was ordered.
|
|||||
| Webster v. AG of Okla., No. 06-6207,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's failure to seek appellate review in state court constituted a procedural default of his Brady claim, and he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice, or that failure to consider his claim would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Thus, the inmate was not entitled to a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 since his claim was barred.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
