 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bodine v. Warden of Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr., No. 06-6264,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner was not entitled to COA to appeal denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition because trial court's challenged ex parte communication with jury did not occur at a critical stage of trial. It took place after conviction, after the jury had recommended the maximum sentence for each of 11 offenses, and well before sentence was imposed.
|
|||||
| Butt v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 05-2175,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because of the bank's potentially wrongful actions with respect to three transactions, the district court's judgment that it need not conclusively find whether the bank acted adversely to the interest holder's interest in certain transactions was reversed and the case was remanded to address whether the interest holder had a valid accounting claim.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Workman, No. 06-6212,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State prisoner was not entitled to a COA pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c) because a state court did not unreasonably apply the principles set forth in Strickland when it found that trial counsel's performance was not deficient for failure to put forth exculpatory expert witness testimony to counter state's forensic case and its bloodstain expert.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. Addison, No. 06-6306,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: For substantially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge, the appellate court found that a prisoner convicted of child abuse murder under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.7(C), was not entitled to a COA; the court was not persuaded that jurists of reason would have disagreed with the district court's disposition of his habeas petition.
|
|||||
| How v. City of Baxter Springs, No. 06-3022,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment to a city clerk on a city council candidate's First Amendment § 1983 claim was affirmed where the candidate failed to show that the city clerk wore a badge of state authority when she filed her criminal defamation complaint against him; that the performance of her duties was criticized did not imbue her complaint with state action.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. Rite of Passage, Inc., No. 06-1138,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employee/Air Force reservist failed to meet his initial burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his military service obligation was a motivating factor in his termination, the district court properly granted summary judgment to his employer on his USERRA claim for discrimination under 38 U.S.C.S. § 4311.
|
|||||
| Raz v. United States, No. 06-5101,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the district court failed to state the reason(s) for its dismissal of the complaint in either of its two minute orders dismissing plaintiff's complaint, a remand was required with directions for the district court to enter a proper order setting forth a statement of reasons to support its dismissal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Du, Nos. 05-1288 and 05-1371, No. 06-1053,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employment verification policy was not an occupational restriction under U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5 that required individualized or case-by-case implementation where the policy did not place any limits on the terms of employment, or require a probationer to engage in a specified occupation or profession only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances.
|
|||||
| United States v. Turner, No. 06-3168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based upon the nature of the offense, defendant's criminal history, and his flaunting of the rules of pretrial release, the imposition of a nine-month sentence of imprisonment, three months below the guidelines sentence, was perhaps too reasonable. Therefore, the length of defendant's sentence did not evince error and was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Zaragoza, No. 05-1491,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In rejecting a defendant's reasonableness challenge to the length of his sentence, the reviewing court noted that although there were some extenuating factors, the sentence was quite appropriate for someone who had violated his state parole on three occasions and was a fugitive from justice at the time of his arrest.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
