 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andrews v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Neb. Emple. Group Long Term Disability Ins. Plan, No. 05-1278,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not clearly err when it denied attorney's fees and costs to the claimant under ERISA because the court considered each party to have prevailed in part, and the bulk of the litigation was devoted to an issue on which the claimant did not prevail, namely, the benefit calculation.
|
|||||
| Arps v. Cormack, No. 04-6354,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals affirmed district court's order dismissing claims state inmate filed against a police officer and others, alleging that the officer used excessive force and that the state used perjured testimony to prosecute her, because the claims were barred by Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations applicable to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 actions.
|
|||||
| Donahou v. Oklahoma, No. 05-5181,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal district court, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, properly dismissed an ex-husband's claim that the state violated due process in a domestic relations dispute because he raised the same state law claims that were previously dismissed by the district court and affirmed on appeal and inextricably intertwined with state court judgments.
|
|||||
| United States v. David A., No. 04-2284,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's decision to transfer the juvenile to the district court to be tried as an adult was affirmed where any delay in the district court's resolution of the government's transfer motion did not violate the speedy trial rights under 18 U.S.C.S. § 5036 since filing a transfer motion tolled the juvenile's 30-day speedy trial rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Voss, No. 04-5180,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court had authority under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3664(h) to require defendant who was convicted of knowingly possessing stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1708, to pay all losses suffered by people who lost money when defendant and others took residential mail, altered checks they found, and passed the checks to business establishments.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
