 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Qz'Etax v. Ortiz, No. 05-1316,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim that a prison regulation violated the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to a transsexual prisoner's need for medical treatment was affirmed because an inmate did not state with sufficiency how the regulation was deliberately indifferent to her condition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Armenta-Arredondo, No. 04-1325,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a), (b)(2) was affirmed because application of an enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) was required since defendant was tried as an adult for a prior California drug trafficking conviction and he could not collaterally attack that conviction.
|
|||||
| McCauley v. Ward, No. 05-6319,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1) to challenge the denial of a habeas petition was denied because Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 443(C) dealt only with the felony crime of escape, and not with the definition of escape in a disciplinary proceeding, and thus an inmate's due process rights were not violated when he was not absent for 24 hours.
|
|||||
| United States v. Faulkner, No. 05-3061, No. 05-3073,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The admission at the defendants' trial of recordings of telephone calls made by a coconspirator from prison to the defendants and others did not violate the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2510 et seq., because the recordings were properly admitted under the consent exception, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2511(2)(d).
|
|||||
| Landrith v. Hazlett, No. 04-3364,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988(b) claim for costs against government officials was properly dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine because there was no indication that state disciplinary proceedings, which were pending at the time of the district court's ruling and involved an important state interest, did not provide an adequate forum.
|
|||||
| Self v. Crum, No. 04-1037,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's § 1983 claim that a prison doctor violated his Eighth Amendment rights when he failed to diagnose the inmate's heart condition was properly dismissed because, although the doctor may have been negligent in misdiagnosing the inmate's ailment, he did not consciously disregard the possibility of the inmate's heart condition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Croxford, No. 04-4158,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Congress rationally found that intrastate production of child pornography, in the aggregate, substantially affected interstate commerce. Thus, its enactment of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2251(a) to regulate the interstate market of child pornography, was within its authority to regulate commerce among the several states under U.S. Const. art I, § 8.
|
|||||
| Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., No. 05-3081,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court lacked jurisdiction to hear a plaintiff's appeal of a grant of summary judgment. The appeal was not timely filed, and the plaintiff's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) did not toll the time period because it was not properly filed, having been filed within 10 days of judgment without stating with particularity the grounds for relief.
|
|||||
| Van Scoten v. Comm'r, No. 05-9000,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the determination made by the United States Tax Court that sustained its negligence determination and rejected the taxpayers' argument that they should have been relieved from paying the 26 U.S.C.S. § 6662(a) penalty because they showed reasonable cause and acted in good faith in claiming the loss.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
