 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dimsdale v. Peters, No. 06-6281,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to a federal employer because an employee failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on several claims, and although he sought administrative relief on his age and race based discrimination claims, he failed to timely seek counseling as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) and his failure was not excused.
|
|||||
| Harsco Corp. v. Renner, No. 05-4201, No. 05-4216,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was liable under Title VII for a sexually hostile work environment, but vacating of employee's punitive damage award was affirmed because paucity of evidence concerning employer's actions, as opposed to those of managerial employees, did not support vicarious liability for punitive damages in light of the Kolstad defense.
|
|||||
| Luginbyhl v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 06-7053,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although it was not clear whether a district court evaluated prison officials' motion for summary judgment, a remand for that purpose would have been a waste of judicial resources because the uncontroverted facts showed that the prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and he could not have proceeded on his §§ 1983 and 1985 claims.
|
|||||
| Marquez v. New Mexico, No. 06-2136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's discrimination case was properly dismissed as time-barred because his complaint was not filed within 90 days of the EEOC's right-to-sue letter, counting either pursuant to presumption of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e) that a document was received three days after mailing or under the common-law presumption of receipt within five days of mailing.
|
|||||
| Sheridan v. United States, No. 06-2181,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals remanded plaintiff's pro se action against the U.S. Government, claiming that police officers and other people who worked for state and county governments in New Mexico violated his constitutional rights, because the district court should have determined if plaintiff stated valid claims against state and county employees.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Ulibarri, No. 06-2195,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required by 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2), and thus, his request for a COA was denied and his appeal dismissed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Aparicio, No. 06-4139,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant raised no debatable argument that his waiver of the right to collateral attack was involuntary and so constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, he waived the right to pursue all other claims under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255, his application for a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 was denied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Harris, No. 05-5229,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of defendant's prior arrests for drug crimes under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) where the evidence was offered for a proper purpose, to establish defendant's intent, knowledge, and lack of mistake, and the evidence was relevant to prove the elements of the crimes charged.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hernandez-Roman, No. 06-4148 and 06-4163,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was affirmed because the district court's factual finding that defendant was not a minor participant, and its refusal to grant a minor role reduction under USSG § 3B1.2 in calculating defendant's sentence, was supported by the evidence and had to be upheld.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez, No. 06-2197,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony that defendant had told a witness that people in Mexico wanted to kill her boyfriend because his co-defendant had "snitched" was properly admitted to show evidence of defendant's knowledge of and participation in a drug conspiracy under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
