 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Liverman v. Bush, No. 05-4023,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Authority limiting mandamus under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1361 to nondiscretionary duties and recognizing that criminal prosecution was left to executive branch discretion, converged on the conclusion that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel the President and Attorney General to investigate and prosecute the criminal conduct alluded to in the complaint.
|
|||||
| Pinkey v. Ortiz, No. 06-1268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because her direct appeal was either abandoned or still pending, petitioner failed to fully exhaust her claim, and the Colorado Supreme Court's dismissal of her mandamus claim did not amount to a final judgment on the merits; thus, petitioner had not exhausted her state-court remedies for purposes of filing a § 2241 habeas petition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Price, No. 06-5094,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A COA was denied because the conclusion that neither trial nor appellate counsel were ineffective was not debatable, the sentencing challenges were foreclosed as neither Blakely nor Booker was retroactive to initial petitions on collateral review, and having found no errors in counsel's performance, cumulative error analysis did not apply.
|
|||||
| West v. Evergreen Highlands Ass'n, No. 05-1035,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of lot owner's suit against a homeowner's association and a state, alleging that they deprived the owner of various federal and state rights, was affirmed because district court lacked jurisdiction. Application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not turn on whether state court proceeding afforded an opportunity to litigate federal claims.
|
|||||
| Chrisman v. Mullins, No. 06-6182,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of § 2254 relief was affirmed where since restrictions on parole eligibility involved collateral consequences of a nolo contendere plea, the failure to inform the inmate of the applicability of Oklahoma's 85 percent requirement did not implicate the Sixth Amendment, and thus, was not grounds for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
|
|||||
| Hackett v. Barnhart, No. 06-1066,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ's analysis at step five of the social security disability benefits finding was not substantially justified since he mischaracterized the hearing testimony of the vocational expert. Thus, the claimant was entitled to recover the EAJA fees that she sought, subject to reductions by the district court on remand based on a reasonableness analysis.
|
|||||
| Holdeman v. Devine, No. 05-4302,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In affirming, in part, a judgment in favor of defendant CEO/plan fiduciary, the court agreed that, regarding defendant's alleged failure to allocate adequate funding to a benefits plan including the decision to pay large sums to the employer's principles, he was "wearing his CEO hat" and did not breach any ERISA fiduciary duties to the plan.
|
|||||
| Pritchett v. Barnhart, No. 06-5130,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals affirmed an ALJ's decision that a claimant who applied for disability insurance benefits was not disabled, even though ALJ failed to discuss his reasons for reaching his decision at step three of the five-step evaluation process, because his findings at steps four and five of the process alleviated any concern about that failure.
|
|||||
| United States v. Atencio, No. 05-2279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the court, in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, failed to give notice of its intent to vary the sentence above the advisory range, did not adequately explain its reasons for the variance, and failed to provide notice of its consideration of the sex offender registration requirement, the sentence was reversed and remanded for resentencing.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
