 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. Sirmons, No. 04-6397,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant demonstrated that counsel's failure to discover readily available mitigation evidence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment during the penalty phase of his trial, and showed a reasonable probability that but for counsel's deficient performance, the outcome of the penalty phase would have been different.
|
|||||
| Bergman v. LaCouture, No. 06-1342,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed dismissal of a prisoner's case for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, in arguing that she was denied due process because she was not given adequate notice of or an opportunity to be heard at a child custody hearing, the prisoner's appeal sought review and rejection of a final state court judgment.
|
|||||
| Bisner v. Clark, No. 06-4234,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was not reasonably debatable whether the district court's procedural ruling dismissing his petition as untimely was correct, a prisoner's request for a COA was denied and his appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Cutbirth v. Wyo. Dep't of Corr. Dir., No. 06-8001,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court agreed with the district court's reasons for finding that petitioner was afforded the minimum procedural protections mandated by federal law in the revocation of his parole, and the court declined to find that his rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-401(f) to a three-member panel was somehow protected by the Due Process Clause.
|
|||||
| Denham v. Sunoco, Inc., No. 06-5040,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the evidence presented on a claim under ERISA's anti-discrimination provision, including a videotape of plaintiff employee performing physical activities that were incompatible with his alleged disabilities, there was no error in the district court's conclusion that an employer's reason for termination was both reasonable and believable.
|
|||||
| Dmitruk v. George & Sons' Repair Shop, Inc., No. 06-1188,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to a tow truck company and its driver because even assuming the driver violated Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-230 and 49 C.F.R § 392.22 by failing to put out warning triangles, nothing suggested the triangles would have prevented the collision, i.e., that not putting out the triangles caused the fatal accident.
|
|||||
| Gilbert v. Reid, No. 06-1001,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A habeas petition was properly dismissed as time-barred because, for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d), a post-conviction motion was not "pending" when petitioner moved for the appointment of counsel to help prepare his petition; it became "pending" only after a request for relief was made.
|
|||||
| Hicks v. Bank of Am., No. 05-1399, No. 05-1525,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitrator's decision that two companies which acquired a promissory note from a bank committed abuse of process under Tennessee law when they sued a borrower in federal court was supported by evidence that the note required the parties to submit disputes to arbitration, and court of appeals upheld arbitrator's decision awarding borrower $ 400,000.
|
|||||
| Hutchinson v. Pfeil, No. 06-5053, No. 06-5055, No. 06-5121, No. 06-5122,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Each of four similar appeals were frivolous; in other words, plaintiffs' arguments of error were without merit. Before holding plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel jointly and severally liable for double costs under Fed. R. App. P. 38, the court afforded them a chance to respond to the specific sanction the court intended to impose.
|
|||||
| Magraff v. Lowes HIW, Inc., Nos. 05-1537 & 06-1031,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no abuse of discretion in a district court's conclusion that a calendaring error by counsel caused a delay in filing a notice of appeal and did not constitute excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or good cause under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) to justify an extension of time to file the notice of appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
