 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hardman v. Autozone, Inc., No. 05-3347,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the first jury found for the employee on his harassment claim, that judgment never had a chance to alter the parties' legal relationship, and the employer prevailed at the second trial. Thus, the employee was awarded no relief by the court and was therefore not a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-5.
|
|||||
| Starr v. Ward, No. 06-5181,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Request for COA, as required by 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1)(A) for appeal of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition, was denied because inmate's amended petition was filed more than nine months after AEDPA's one-year limitations period expired and raised additional claims that were not tied to a common core of operative facts applicable to his original claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. Crook, No. 05-7106,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 666 was affirmed because defendant's trial, after an acquittal under 18 U.S.C.S. § 641, did not violate Double Jeopardy Clause. Each offense required proof of a fact the other did not. Specifically, 18 U.S.C.S. § 641 required proof of federal ownership of the money or property taken, while 18 U.S.C.S. § 666 did not.
|
|||||
| United States v. Duran, No. 06-4003,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for drug and firearm charges were affirmed because the evidence based on an informant's testimony that was corroborated in part by a law enforcement officer was sufficient to convict, no Jencks Act violation was established, and there was no showing of plain error for the six errors raised for the first time on appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garrison, No. 06-6128,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a motion to suppress was affirmed because it was perfectly reasonable in defendant's case for an officer to have conducted a protective search based on a belief that defendant was armed and dangerous after defendant told the officer that he was just released from prison and was carrying a gun.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morales-Ramirez, No. 06-2270,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentencing court's plea colloquy was adequate and defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary; a 16-level enhancement based on reentry after a deportation following a conviction for a crime of violence was appropriate because attempted robbery was such a crime under USSG § 2L1.2, and a 46-month sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
