 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Berryhill v. Calbone, No. 05-5144,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State appellate court considered the inmate's Fourth Amendment claim and, applying appropriate Supreme Court precedent, rejected the claim on its merits. Based on that record, the inmate had multiple opportunities to litigate the Fourth Amendment issues fully and fairly, and thus was not entitled to a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2).
|
|||||
| Dillon Cos. v. Hussmann Corp., No. 03-1493,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a lessee was awarded damages for its negligence claim against a contractor regarding a fire, the district court did not err in submitting a comparative negligence instruction to the jury under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111(1), because, inter alia, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that both parties were at fault for the fire.
|
|||||
| Green v. Whetsel, No. 05-6300,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pretrial detainee was denied COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) because he did not make substantial showing of denial of constitutional right, as district court's decision to dismiss 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition based on abstention doctrine was not reasonably subject to debate and detainee's claims were not adequate to deserve further proceedings.
|
|||||
| Kirtley v. Sovereign Life Ins. Co. (In re Durability, Inc.), No. 04-5133,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The bankruptcy court erred in holding that an insurance policy had lapsed prior to a bankruptcy filing against the insured because, although a premium was not paid in advance due to a returned draft, the next month's draft by the insurer was paid and should have been applied to the unpaid premium because it was accepted within the grace period.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Simmons, No. 05-3194,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals refused to issue COA so state inmate could appeal district court's judgment denying his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 because reasonable jurists would not debate district court's ruling that inmate's rights to a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel were not violated during his trial in state court.
|
|||||
| Simms v. Gibson, No. 05-5159,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of an action was affirmed because an inmate's guilty plea in Oklahoma state court precluded his claims under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 and RICO challenging the legality of his arrest since his civil claims sought to undermine the validity of a conviction that had not been reversed, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question.
|
|||||
| Triple M Fin., Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 05-3142,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was affirmed because an insurer did not have a duty to defendant an insured in a patent infringement action since the reasonable meaning of the phrase "invasion of possession of personal property" did not tend toward inclusion of patent infringement and specific coverage for patent infringement was absent from the policy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Atencio, Nos. 04-2325, 05-2022,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals reversed defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 846, because that offense was a lesser included offense of the charge that they engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 848.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carpenter, No. 05-7061,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's application for a writ of coram nobis was affirmed because his assertion that his 30-month sentence, which he stipulated to as part of his plea agreement, was inconsistent with Blakely and Booker was not sufficient to fall within the extremely narrow scope of coram nobis.
|
|||||
| United States v. Famiglietta, No. 05-2031,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when officers entered an apartment without a search warrant to retrieve a bag with white residue that was noticed in a person's hand because exigent circumstances were shown; the officer had probable cause, and there was a likelihood of destruction since the person was trying to conceal the bag.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
