 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Annis v. Collins, No. 06-8069,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) dismissal of pro se property owner's suit was affirmed and Fed. R. App. P. 38 sanctions were granted because property owner failed to challenge determination that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his action; claims of jurisdiction arising from clerk's oath of office and land patents were groundless.
|
|||||
| Griffiths-Rast v. Sulzer Spine Tech, No. 05-4279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Product liability claim was barred under the two year statute of limitations of Utah Code Ann. § 78-15-3 because no reasonable jury could have found that the patient should have discovered, through due diligence, that the manufacturer manufactured the back implant prior to the date on which she filed her notice of intent to commence action.
|
|||||
| Hollingshead v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Okla., No. 05-6276,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a "more than one organ of the same type" exclusion was not reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, no uncertainty existed as to the meaning of any term, and an insured received a second liver transplant within days after the first one failed, the decision to exclude coverage under an ERISA plan was reasonable.
|
|||||
| Julien v. Abbott, No. 06-1462,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling based on a prisoner's failure to exhaust his state remedies, the court denied the prisoner's request for a COA to challenge the dismissal of his § 2254 petition and dismissed the matter.
|
|||||
| Mann v. Boatright, No. 05-1559,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court correctly dismissed the daughter's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the federal complaint, which sought a declaratory judgment nullifying various orders of the probate court, impermissibly sought review and reversal of the probate court judgments.
|
|||||
| Merritt v. Tellabs Operations, Inc. , No. 06-1198,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of an employer in an ADEA case was affirmed because the employee failed to show that the employer's reason (performance failure) for his termination was a pretext for age discrimination; comments about promoting a youth movement in management and the failure to follow employee guidelines did not constitute pretext.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Estrada, No. 05-1476,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of the significant shift in the evidentiary burden on whether a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a) following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Bock, the court remanded to the district court all rulings on exhaustion for further proceedings in keeping with the new law.
|
|||||
| Morton v. Roberts, No. 06-3333,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court held that a prisoner's § 2254 habeas petition was time-barred. On appeal, petitioner did not even address that conclusion and thus, he completely failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the ruling was subject to debate. The appeals court denied his request for a COA and dismissed the appeal.
|
|||||
| Niania v. Gonzales, No. 06-9525,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A slightly flawed transcript did not prejudice an alien's ability to appeal the denial of cancellation of removal to the BIA or to seek court review; since the alien failed to show that his ability to present his argument was prejudiced, he failed to establish his claim for a due process violation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Herrera, No. 06-6208,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was denied because his contentions were not based on newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have found him guilty of the offense or on a new rule of constitutional law that was previously unavailable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
