 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Butler v. Butierres, No. 06-1407,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner's § 1983 case was remanded for reconsideration as to whether prisoner willfully violated the plain language of July 13 payment order and whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate when prisoner did not make in forma pauperis payment under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(b) by July 15. Issue was present as to whether order applied to July payment.
|
|||||
| Durham v. United States, No. 06-2299,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Harris v. Morales, No. 05-1225,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals remanded former inmate's claim alleging that a supervisor at a county jail violated his Eighth Amendment rights when he denied the inmate's request for medical care after a guard sprayed pepper foam into the inmate's eye because district court did not address the issue of whether the supervisor was entitled to qualified immunity.
|
|||||
| Karr v. Hefner, No. 05-7105,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of the corporations from the action based on the inadequacy of the owners' notice letter under 33 U.S.C.S. § 1365(b)(1)(A) was affirmed where the letter failed to comply with 40 C.F.R. § 135.3(a) since it did not specify a point source or provide guidance regarding what provision of a statute, regulation, or permit had been violated.
|
|||||
| United States v. Chavez-Avila, No. 06-4169,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Heijnen, Nos. 05-2114 & 05-2318,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed before judgment was final. Judgment in a second appeal was affirmed because defendant-appellant was not excused from failing to support his arguments with legal authority when he had waived his right to counsel and because his other arguments were frivolous.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hernandez-Bautista, No. 05-2386,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction was affirmed because the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting testimony about a citizen's tip as it was used to explain why agents proceeded to a location, in allowing testimony regarding tire tracks which remained within the limitations of Fed. R. Evid. 701, or in allowing use of the word "conspired."
|
|||||
| United States v. Hodges, No. 06-5038,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to suppress evidence was properly denied because the police officers had a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop based on a citizen's tip that the driver had threatened him with a gun and the officers did not exceed the scope of the Terry stop by executing a high-risk traffic stop and handcuffing defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stone, No. 05-6113,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to jury trial when it revoked his supervised release based on facts it found by preponderance of the evidence, even though State of Oklahoma dismissed criminal charges it had filed against defendant which were based, in part, on facts district court used to revoke supervised release.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
