 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bethel v. Rohling, No. 06-3107,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Request for a COA to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition was denied because a district court correctly found that petitioner's claims were not debatable; the district court concluded that enactment of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3220 and the decision upholding the abolition of the insanity defense were not contrary to clearly established federal law.
|
|||||
| Martinez-Bey v. Ortiz, No. 06-1067,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State prisoner was denied COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 to challenge denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas petition because he had not shown that reasonable jurists could debate determination that he was not being unconstitutionally held beyond the end of his sentence nor unconstitutionally denied consideration of parole before end of three years.
|
|||||
| Robertson v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry., No. 06-7058,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hybrid action alleging union's breach of its duty of fair representation and railroad company's breach of agreement with union was properly dismissed because claim against the union was based on negligence, which was insufficient to show a breach of the duty of fair representation and, thus, the contract claim lacked its jurisdictional predicate.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hoff, No. 06-8022,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to establish plain error based on the sentencing court's Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 error in apprising him that the maximum term of supervised release was three years and imposing a 10-year term; his challenge to the relevant conduct finding which triggered the cross-reference in USSG § 2G2.4 was foreclosed by circuit precedent.
|
|||||
| United States v. Olivas-Montoya, No. 06-2222,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There being no nonfrivolous issues upon which to base an appeal, the court dismissed the appeal and granted counsel's motion to withdraw. Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim could not be raised on direct appeal.
|
|||||
| Xiangyuan Zhu v. St. Francis Health Ctr., No. 06-3113,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the relevant facts in a plaintiff's federal complaint were all related in time, space and origin to the relevant facts in her state complaint, the district court did not err in concluding that they arose out of the same transaction or series of connected transactions and that plaintiff's RICO claim therefore was barred by res judicata.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
