 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bravo v. O'Dell, No. 05-6111,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A request for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) to challenge the denial of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition was denied because a state appellate court did not unreasonably apply the standard of Jackson v. Virginia in holding that sufficient evidence supported an inmate's conviction for first degree felony murder.
|
|||||
| Coleman v. Blair, No. 05-4195,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of an ex-wife's claims for fraud against the acting director of the United States Office of Personnel Management for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) was affirmed because the ex-wife failed to identify a waiver of sovereign immunity and she failed to exhaust federal administrative remedies.
|
|||||
| Martin v. Comm'r, No. 04-9003,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The IRS was permitted to levy a taxpayer's property because the filing of a petition for redetermination suspended the running of the statute of limitations under 26 U.S.C.S. § 6503 to assess the taxpayer's income tax, even when the petition was not authorized by the taxpayer and did not include the notice of deficiency sent to the taxpayer.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. United States DOE, No. 04-2321,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 621-631, 633-34, summary judgment was granted to employer because there was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting where an application was deficient.
|
|||||
| McBee v. Lewis, No. 05-5058,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court correctly dismissed the inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas petition because at the time of filing his § 2241 petition in Oklahoma, the inmate was incarcerated in Oregon and not Oklahoma. Thus, the sentencing court in Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to consider claims for relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241.
|
|||||
| United States v. Triplett, No. 05-6342,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal from the denial of defendant's motion for relief from a conviction and sentence was dismissed because Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) was insufficient to confer jurisdiction, as a threshhold matter or a vehicle for relief, on a district court when the existence of a prior pending appeal transferred jurisdiction months before to the appellate court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 05-5065,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) post-conviction motion challenging his sentence under Booker was an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion, since his motion sought to raise a new claim, and failed as a request for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion because Booker was not retroactive to cases on collateral review.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
