 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. Wood, Nos. 04-6183 and 04-6239,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence supported a jury finding that the company's breach of contract in not paying with regard to construction of the stations constituted a first breach of the Oklahoma station contract, the district court erred when it refused to submit the company's breach of contract claim, and the corporation's first breach defense, to the jury.
|
|||||
| Speer v. Sirmons, No. 05-6272,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court denied a state inmate's request for a certificate of appealability when it noted that it could not state that it was debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling when the district court agreed that the 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition filed by the inmate was untimely.
|
|||||
| United States v. Castillo-Olivas, No. 05-3208,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: COA would not issue under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) from denial of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 petition where petitioner did not show reasonable jurists could debate whether district court was correct in applying plea agreement waiver of collateral challenges to sentence, as counsel's failure to anticipate Blakely and Booker was not ineffective assistance.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pina-Nunez, No. 05-2072,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of a defendant's admission of the facts which supported the application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) enhancement, defendant could not establish that the district court's error in applying the enhancement categorically seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
|
|||||
| United States v. Weidner, Nos. 04-3084, 04-3118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the United States' case was largely circumstantial, evidence was sufficient, and jury instructions were adequate. The court affirmed the convictions under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 371, 1005, and 1957 that were charged against a former bank president and a borrower when they failed to disclose the existence of a $ 1.5 million loan between them.
|
|||||
| Espinoza v. Coca-Cola Enters., No. 05-1025,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer was properly granted summary judgment on a discrimination claim because there was insufficient evidence of pretext when the Hispanic employee received a write-up and unsatisfactory performance evaluation by a supervisor unconnected to the promotion shortly before applying for the promotion the employee did not receive.
|
|||||
| Hurn v. McGuire, No. 05-3206,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas petition was properly denied because the inquiry into his mental capacity and his treatment tolled the speedy trial requirements and, thus, there was no ineffective assistance of counsel in the failure to raise a speedy trial defense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia, No. 04-8123,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) where the evidence supported an inference that defendant knew the cocaine was in the SUV, had access to the cocaine, and had the specific intent to distribute it.
|
|||||
| United States v. Kristl, No. 05-1067,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals reversed sentence of 28 months' imprisonment that was imposed on defendant who pled guilty to possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), because district court erred when it calculated a sentencing range under the USSG and it could not be said that the error was harmless.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
