 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aid for Women v. Foulston, No. 04-3310,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Preliminary injunction against mandate in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1522 that plaintiffs report adolescents who might be sexually active where no actual abuse or injury was suspected was erroneously granted as plaintiffs failed to show substantial likelihood of prevailing; among other things, minors had no right to privacy in illegal sexual activity.
|
|||||
| Bustillo v. Hood, No. 05-1299,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Colorado district court correctly denied a prisoner's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition because a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion in the California district court where he was convicted was the exclusive remedy to challenge his conviction and the fact that he could not file another § 2255 motion did not render the remedy inadequate.
|
|||||
| Fogle v. Pierson, No. 05-1405,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals reversed a district court's judgment dismissing an action which a state inmate filed against prison officials, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights when they kept him isolated in administrative segregation at three state prisons from September 2000 until August 2003.
|
|||||
| Rowe v. Hood, No. 05-1209,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court correctly denied an inmate's § 2241 habeas corpus petition where, because the inmate had not established the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a § 2255 motion, the exclusive remedy to challenge the inmate's conviction and sentence was to file a § 2255 motion in the district court where the inmate was convicted and sentenced.
|
|||||
| United States v. Aguirre-Leon, No. 05-3247,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A pro se federal inmate's application for a COA was denied, and the appeal was dismissed because jurists of reason would not find debatable the district court's finding that the inmate's appeal waiver was enforceable and that the Blakely decision did not apply retroactively to a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 petition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Armenta, No. 05-8090,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A pro se federal inmate's request to proceed in forma pauperis and his application for a COA were denied, and his appeal was dismissed because jurists of reason would not find debatable the district court's rejection of the inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 petition as untimely.
|
|||||
| United States v. Green, No. 05-5053,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that procedures which were used to select a jury pool in defendant's trial on charges alleging that he possessed cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute and illegally possessed a sawed-off shotgun, which gave preference to people who had registered to vote, did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Roberts, No. 04-6285,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although district court committed error under U.S. v. Booker when it imposed a mandatory sentence under the USSG on defendant who was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 922 and 21 U.S.C.S. § 843, court of appeals found that error was harmless because the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence if Guidelines were advisory.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
