 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Girardin v. Milyard, No. 05-1384,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's statement that he was unaware of a constitutional infirmity in his convictions until he found an unnamed case while researching in a law library did not constitute a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive and, thus, did not make a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(b)(2) for filing a successive habeas petition.
|
|||||
| Giron v. Chaparro, No. 05-2015,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the magistrate performed a judicial act with the requisite jurisdictional authority to cite the interpreter with contempt, regardless of any alleged personal motives or procedural errors, the magistrate was entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Mullin, No. 04-5067,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although court of appeals found that error occurred during petitioner state inmate's trial on four counts of first degree murder, it agreed with Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and federal district court that the error was harmless, and it affirmed district court's judgment denying inmate's application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254.
|
|||||
| Infanzon v. Gonzales, No. 05-9542,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider alien's second motion to reopen where, following entry of final order of removal, alien was returned to Peru, his second motion to reopen was filed after his departure, and regulations found in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) prohibited filing of motions to reopen by removed aliens who had departed U.S.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. Barnhart, No. 04-2259,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a claimant's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act was affirmed because the Appeals Council adequately considered the additional evidence of the treating physician's treatment records submitted to the Appeals Council under 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b).
|
|||||
| Otero v. Gonzales, No. 04-9610,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that it lacked jurisdiction to review BIA's determination that alien's application for asylum was untimely, and record supported BIA's determination that alien was not eligible for restriction on removal because he did not establish that it was likely he would be tortured by public officials if he were returned to Columbia.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. Thomas, No. 05-4024,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers believed the driver was under the influence of either drugs or alcohol. When they tried to stop him, he turned his vehicle into oncoming traffic and tried to evade them. Finally, he fled on foot. These allegations led to the conclusion that the officers, regarding the Fourth Amendment, used an objectively reasonable amount of force.
|
|||||
| United States v. Medrano, No. 05-2057,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it used information that appeared in a presentence report to determine the quantity of drugs defendant distributed and a sentencing range under the USSG before it sentenced defendant for distributing five grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841, because it treated Guidelines as advisory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Powell, No. 04-1472,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for submitting a materially false loan application to a federal government agency in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1001 was affirmed because the evidence in the form of fraudulent documents was sufficient to support the conviction and the admission of defendant's loan application was not inadmissible hearsay under Fed. R. Civ. P. 801(c).
|
|||||
| Washburn v. Santa Fe Tow, No. 05-2074,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motorcycle owners' motion to remand their civil rights action against the state, its agents, and towing company to state court was properly denied because they waived the procedural defects, including the illegibility of the notice of removal, by failing to file the motion within 30 days of removal, as required by 28 U.S.C.S. § 1447(c).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
