 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alexander v. Addison, No. 05-6062,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A procedural ruling that a prisoner's habeas petition was time-barred was undebatably correct and did not warrant a COA because the petition was not timely filed within one year after AEDPA's effective date and the tolling provision of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(2) did not apply when the convictions were final before the Blakely decision.
|
|||||
| Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., No. 05-4067,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a seller did not have standing to challenge the restrictions of Bountiful City, Utah, Code § 13-1-103(4)(a), (b), a dismissal with prejudice was inappropriate since it was based on jurisdictional grounds; moreover, a denial of leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) based on futility also did not warrant a dismissal with prejudice.
|
|||||
| Broadus v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 04-6136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals affirmed district court's judgment dismissing action which state inmate filed under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983. alleging that a company that operated a prison for the State of Oklahoma and employees who worked at the prison violated his constitutional rights, because inmate did not exhaust his administrative remedies before he filed suit.
|
|||||
| Ellsworth v. Gibson, No. 05-7047,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in granting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) motions of prison officials and employees to dismiss a civil rights action after finding that a prisoner's failure to provide particularized discovery information stalled the judicial process and that the motions and show-cause order gave forewarning of dismissal.
|
|||||
| Henderson v. Ray, No. 04-6391,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court correctly dismissed an inmate's motion for an extension in which to file a motion for rehearing on the ground that the notice of appeal from the denial of habeas relief divested it of jurisdiction because the motion was not filed within the Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 time period and, thus, he did not file a jurisdiction-divesting motion.
|
|||||
| Milligan v. Matthews, No. 05-1007,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that inmate was not entitled to take advantage of prison mailbox rule because he did not allege that he made timely use of prison's legal mail system or that he gave documents to prison authorities, postage prepaid, and it upheld district court's judgment denying inmate's motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal.
|
|||||
| SEC v. Solv-Ex Corp., No. 05-2001,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judge's failure to accurately quote a witness's testimony and reference to video testimony of a witness who testified in person did not suggest bias or prejudice or justify relief from judgment in an SEC enforcement action; therefore, there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendant's motion to recuse and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.
|
|||||
| Stepnay v. Goff, No. 05-3203,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because pro se litigants were to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings, and because amendment was not futile, the district court erred when it dismissed the inmate's Eighth Amendment complaint under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e) without first giving him an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure any deficiencies.
|
|||||
| Triplett v. Triplett, No. 05-3354,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a prisoner's personal injury complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) was proper because the prisoner presented no intelligible argument that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint after finding that it consisted of unintelligible ramblings and did not rest on a cognizable legal interest.
|
|||||
| United States v. Clark, No. 05-6028,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant could not show a reasonable probability that the defects in his sentencing altered the result of the proceedings, any Booker error that occurred was not plain error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
