 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 04-1315,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of an attorney fees award to a pedestrian who succeeded on a contract reformation claim was affirmed because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-708 (2002), repealed, did not authorize the fees since his claim did not concern a failure to pay "overdue" PIP benefits--he was not entitled to damages until the date the reformation was effective.
|
|||||
| CoBank, ACB v. Reorganized Farmers Coop. Ass'n, No. 04-3385,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a cooperative defaulted on a loan agreement and the bank denied approval of a large advance, the bank was entitled to summary judgment as to the cooperative's contract and tort counterclaims; the breach of contract claim failed because the bank was within its contractual rights when it elected not to approve the requested advance.
|
|||||
| Nicodemus v. Union Pac. Corp., Nos. 02-8016, 02-8017,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment dismissing plaintiffs' state law trespass and unjust enrichment claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was reversed because all of plaintiffs' claims hinged on whether defendant railroads' use of their right-of-ways (obtained through federal-land grant statutes) exceeded the purpose for which they were granted.
|
|||||
| Persik v. Salazar, No. 05-1276,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The decision by the district court dismissing a pro se individual's civil rights complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and for a failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and denying leave to amend was affirmed for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's order.
|
|||||
| Rooms v. SEC, No. 05-9531,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a principal did not, pursuant to Nat'l Ass'n Sec. Dealers Manual R. 2110, observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade by failing to respond in an examination truthfully and attempting to mislead the NASD, the SEC did not abuse its discretion in upholding a permanent bar against the principal.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Freil, No. 05-4252,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals reversed district court's judgment dismissing claims which state inmate filed under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that two prison officials who were responsible for his housing assignments violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment because they knew he might be attacked by other inmates and failed to protect him from attacks.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Ortiz, No. 05-1211,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a prisoner was in segregation until a disciplinary conviction was expunged, certain due process claims were properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915 because they were frivolous; the non-frivolous due process and equal protection claims were dismissed because they were time-barred under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102(1).
|
|||||
| United States v. Brinsfield, No. 04-6404,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's Sixth Amendment constitutional Booker error at sentencing was harmless under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) because the sentencing adjustments were supported by substantial evidence and there was no indication that the district court would have been inclined to impose a lower sentence under an advisory U.S.S.G. scheme.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
