 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Albert v. Janecka, No. 05-2122,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Certificate of appealability would not issue from the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition should have been resolved in different manner, as the limitations period expired in July 2000, and petition was not filed until November 2004.
|
|||||
| Ariko v. Gonzalez, No. 05-9511,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's motion to reopen was denied where there was no reason to question the adequacy of the BIA's order denying the alien's motion since the IJ provided a terse, but nevertheless sufficient rationale for denying the alien's motion to reopen, which was affirmed on appeal: that the alien had not kept in contact with his attorney.
|
|||||
| Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, No. 03-6218,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action arising from unauthorized resale over internet of manufacturers' products, tortious interference with contract claim was supported by concealment of activities, which supported finding defendants acted with malice. Initial interest confusion, caused by defendants' use of trademarks and metatags on web sites, supported Lanham Act claim.
|
|||||
| Binford v. United States, No. 05-6052,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate seeking habeas relief was not entitled to credit against his federal sentence for time spent in state prison, because, under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3585, his federal sentence never began until he was finally received into federal custody for the purpose of serving his federal sentence, after completing his state sentence.
|
|||||
| Blue Thunder v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 05-1296,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no issue justifying review of a prisoner's second 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition, which raised the same issues concerning parole revocation as his first petition, under the cause and prejudice or fundamental miscarriage of justice exceptions because the district court did not err in denying the second petition as an abuse of the writ.
|
|||||
| Cooks v. Cargill, Inc., No. 05-1113,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Throughout the course of his case, the employee failed to comply with the local rules of the court and failed to comply with explicit court orders, leading to the issuance of three orders to show cause. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the employee's claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for lack of prosecution.
|
|||||
| Dedrick v. Scibana, No. 05-6268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's dismissal of inmate's petition for 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas corpus relief was affirmed where inmate complained that the conditions of his confinement violated the Eighth Amendment, specifically that inmates were denied conjugal visits, and 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 was not the appropriate remedy for alleged Eighth Amendment violations.
|
|||||
| Esposito v. United States, No. 05-3099,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a terminally-ill prisoner died and his widow alleged that the Government was negligent in failing to promptly transfer him to a medical center, her FTCA claim failed to survive summary judgment because Kansas law required medical expert testimony and the "common knowledge exception" and res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply.
|
|||||
| Giannola v. Aspen/Pitkin County Hous. Auth., No. 05-1195,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment in favor of the housing authority and the city manager on the employee's wrongful termination claims was reversed where genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the written job description, coupled with the statements that were made to the employee, constituted sufficient evidence of a five-year contract.
|
|||||
| Green v. Whetsel, No. 05-6260,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Certificate of appealability would not issue under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) from denial of state prisoners' 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas petition under Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine where state criminal proceedings were pending against prisoners because reasonable jurists could not debate whether petition should have been resolved differently.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
