 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cooper v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 06-5114,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee failed to state a prima facie case under § 1981 where he failed to establish any interference with a protected activity as defined in § 1981 as a result of either the incident regarding the union election materials, the employer's investigation of it, or the employer's decision to give the co-worker no discipline other than an advisory.
|
|||||
| Nicklin Me Mucuuthi v. Gonzales, No. 06-9533,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA's interpretation of the phrase "legal separation," required a formal, legal act that altered the marital relationship. According deference to the BIA's interpretation, the court affirmed the BIA's finding that the alien failed to show the requisite legal separation, and thus, failed to meet the requirements of former § 321(a)(3) of the INA.
|
|||||
| United States v. Condrin, No. 06-2025,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not error to admit a photo of defendant, who at time of trial had a full head of hair, which was taken at the time of his arrest, when his head was shaved, because it was relevant to clarify testimony of witnesses who referred to defendant as the bald man. The probative value outweighed any prejudice. There was no Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) error.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hall, No. 05-1205, 05-1251,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that a witness delivered cocaine to defendant and that there was drug paraphernalia and cocaine residue at defendant's residence was insufficient to show that defendant possessed or distributed crack-cocaine at that time. Thus, his conviction for possession and distribution of crack-cocaine under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841 was reversed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Robertson, No. 05-7020,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for conspiracy to have defendant's husband killed was proper because, although jury instructions regarding elements of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C.S. § 1958(a) should have included intent that a murder be committed, defendant was not prejudiced. Instructions as a whole made it clear that conviction could not occur without such intent.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sinks, No. 05-2170,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the government conceded that the failure of the indictment to charge an interstate commerce element under 18 U.S.C.S. § 842(h) was error and was plain, because the interstate commerce element was proven by overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted evidence, the failure to charge did not rise to the level of plain error.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
