 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bolton v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., No. 06-3042,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to the employer on the employee's claim of employment discrimination under the ADEA was affirmed where none of the evidence regarding other similarly situated employees created a genuine issue of material fact that the reason for terminating the employee's employment, his performance problems, was pretextual.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 06-1134,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reformation of the contract was not required where the claimed violation of the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-701 et seq. (repealed 2003) was the failure to expressly enumerate all the parties eligible to receive PIP benefits, as opposed to the failure to offer those benefits and the failure to provide coverage.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Kemp, No. 05-5160,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed motorists' action challenging Oklahoma's special license plate program because state's scheme for selling special license plates was a tax, and Tax Injunction Act prohibited federal courts from exercising jurisdiction. However, Eleventh Amendment did not preclude review of claims which nonprofit corporation filed.
|
|||||
| Padhiar v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 06-1121,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance company complied with the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-701 et seq. (repealed 2003) where it provided written notice to the insured that enhanced PIP coverages were available and explanations of the basic optional enhanced coverages available in multiple documents, notices and other mailings.
|
|||||
| United States v. Duran, No. 06-4178,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application for a COA pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 was denied because powder methamphetamine was not a Schedule III drug, which would have placed inmate in a lesser sentencing range, rather than a Schedule II drug. Methamphetamine in all forms had been reclassified as a Schedule II drug pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12(d) and 21 U.S.C.S. § 811.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lara-Garcia, No. 06-4155,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction on conditional plea to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was affirmed because federal agent's failure to provide defendant, who was lawfully detained on other grounds, with a Miranda warning prior to inquiring about his immigration status did not require suppression of that status, which was confirmed by fingerprint evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Smith, No. 06-5173,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the district court properly considered the relevant Guidelines range and sentenced defendant within that range, his sentence was presumptively reasonable and defendant had clearly not rebutted that presumption by demonstrating the sentence was unreasonable in light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
