 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, No. 05-2181,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the groups had not alleged any activity, project, or program authorized, funded, or carried out by the U.S. Forest Service that constituted "action" within § 7(a)(2) of the ESA, the Forest Service had no duty to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the ESA, and the groups' amended complaint was not actionable.
|
|||||
| Garrett v. Seymour, No. 06-7029,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed the dismissal of two complaints containing allegations that were wholly conclusory. The court also found it appropriate to impose filing restrictions against plaintiff after finding that he had engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which was manifestly abusive.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. 06-2008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of an employee's § 1983 action was affirmed because the employee failed to show that the district court's finding with respect to qualified immunity was manifestly erroneous.
|
|||||
| United States v. Archuleta, No. 06-4199,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court agreed that forcible medication to restore defendant's competency was appropriate because the four Sell factors were properly analyzed, the conclusion that the governmental interest in prosecuting defendant was strong and undiminished by any special circumstance was correct, and other factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bateman, No. 06-6101,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) was vacated because the court could not allow a guilty verdict based on speculation and conjecture to stand. Defendant's sentence on his conspiracy conviction, which he did not challenge, was affirmed because the sentencing court was not bound by the jury's drug quantity determination.
|
|||||
| United States v. Best, No. 06-6178,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that even assuming defendant was correct when she claimed that pleadings in her case were not filed with the district court before a magistrate judge accepted her guilty plea to unlawfully entering a military installation, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1382, that fact did not divest magistrate of jurisdiction to try the case.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dighera, No. 06-3262,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A COA was denied and defendant's appeal dismissed because the district court properly reasoned that a report of alleged police misconduct, even if true, would at best have provided some impeachment evidence which was insufficient for relief under § 2255. The district court's ruling was not debatable by reasonable jurists.
|
|||||
| United States v. Richards, No. 06-3286,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to suppress evidence was affirmed because pat-down search was proper to assure safety of officer and others during traffic stop of a vehicle suspected of carrying men involved in recent armed robbery. Such a search was not so intrusive as to cause defendant's Fourth Amendment interests to outweigh the officer's interests in safety.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williamson, No. 06-2272,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals granted U.S. Government's motion to enforce defendant's waiver of his right to appeal district court's judgment convicting him of violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 841 because defendant did not show that his decision to waive appeal was not made knowingly and voluntarily, or that it would have been a miscarriage of justice to enforce waiver.
|
|||||
| Wallin v. Dycus, No. 04-1097, No. 05-1439,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In lawsuits claiming violations of the Eighth Amendment and Colorado tort law, dismissal of certain claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a) of the PLRA was remanded in light of ruling that inmates were not required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion. Rulings were otherwise affirmed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
