 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Buhendwa v. Univ. of Colo. at Boulder, No. 05-1526,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's dismissal of the student's claims of discrimination was affirmed where she failed to show that she was subjected to discrimination based solely on her alleged disability under § 504 (29 U.S.C.S. § 794) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.S. § 791 et seq., or that she was denied benefits under Title VI because of her race.
|
|||||
| Dobbs v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, No. 05-1319,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was not enough information to determine whether a tribal benefit plan met the requirements of 29 U.S.C.S. § 1002(32), a remand was needed for the district court's consideration in light of the amended definition of a governmental plan; if the plan were exempt, ERISA would not have preempted the beneficiaries' state-law claims.
|
|||||
| Heckard v. Tafoya, No. 03-2087,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application for a COA was denied where doctrine of exhaustion required that a claim be presented to the state courts under the same theory in which it was later presented in federal court. Thus, the inmate failed to exhaust state remedies where the basis of his state-court ineffective-assistance claim differed from that of his federal claim.
|
|||||
| Lawhead v. Ward, No. 05-6249,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of the 1997 Amendment to the prison's policy to demote the inmate's security class level based on his 1996 escape violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because evidence of the number of credits the inmate would have received absent application of the Amendment showed that the Amendment increased the measure of punishment for his crimes.
|
|||||
| Oglesby v. Hy-Vee, Inc., No. 05-3489,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the employee put forth sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination in violation of the ADEA, there were no genuine issues of material fact for trial on the question of whether the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason proffered by the employer for the termination, sleeping on the job, was pretextual.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gaines, No. 06-7043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A habeas action was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether defendant was entitled to collateral relief on the ground that the credibility of his mental competency evaluation was called into question because his allegations, if proved, would have entitled him to relief and the refusal to hold a hearing would have been an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gomez-Gomez, No. 06-4115,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Regardless of the dicta in Apprendi casting doubt on Almendarez-Torres, the rule remained for charged violations of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 that prior convictions were mere sentencing factors that needed not be alleged in indictments, and there was no sentencing error based on the imposition of an enhancement based on defendant's prior conviction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lagunas, No. 06-1004,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's attack on the validity of his plea agreement was rejected where defendant participated in a valid Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy during which the court ensured he understood the nature of the charges against him, the terms of the proposed agreement, and the rights he would relinquish by entering the agreement.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pereido-Canas, No. 06-2273,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's waiver in his plea agreement of his right to appeal any sentence within the applicable statutory range was enforceable where his appeal fell within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights, defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and enforcing the waiver would not have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
