 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aaron C. v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep't, Nos. 04-2136 and 05-2032,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed a mother's civil rights claims and did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because the fact that she and her children did not receive Medicaid benefits was not traceable to action or inaction by New Mexico Human Services Department and its officers but to her own failure to submit an application.
|
|||||
| Garcia v. Ortiz, No. 05-1433,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the prisoner had filed his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 more than one year after his conviction had become final, and where the appellate court determined that Blakely had no effect on the statute of limitations period in the prisoner's action, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the certificate of appealability.
|
|||||
| Hofer v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 04-3430,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no evidence that an insurer knew that the insured was disabled in 1995; prejudgment interest was properly awarded on the 2001 claim from the date the insurer had information to support the insured's disability claim; the term "prior net income" was unambiguous; and fees were properly awarded only for time that secured favorable results.
|
|||||
| Horne v. McCall, No. 05-1274,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to show reversible error in the orders granting the prison officials summary judgment on his claims that they deliberately destroyed his property, retaliated against him for practicing his religion, illegally seized his blood, labeled him a sex offender without due process, and restricted his privileges.
|
|||||
| United States v. Thomas, No. 05-3237,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's auto burglary offense was not a qualifying prior conviction punishable by a term exceeding one year for purposes of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) because, under Kansas law applicable on the date of sentence, the earliest date a conviction could have been considered final, the term was limited to the nine-month maximum presumptive sentence.
|
|||||
| Raad Abdul-Baki Al-Ani v. Gonzales, No. 04-9592,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review from denial of second motion to reopen deportation proceedings was dismissed as moot under U.S. Const. art. III because claims that BIA erred in denying motion as untimely and number-barred were rendered moot when BIA issued new decision in which BIA held motion was not untimely or number-barred and then denied motion on merits.
|
|||||
| United States v. Galarza-Payan, No. 05-2108,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the district court referenced the U.S.S.G.'s departure language in evaluating defendant's sentence, the record plainly showed it considered the relevant 18 U.S.C.S. 3553(a) factors in reaching its conclusions as to an appropriate sentence. Thus, there was no error in the court's consideration of the relevant factors for sentencing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sawyer, No. 05-5002,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress evidence of motor cycle engines was erroneously granted in defendant's trial under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 371, 2321; although Kansas officers lacked authority under Oklahoma law to request consent to search defendant's Oklahoma motorcycle shop, the state law violation, absent coercion, did not rise to level of Fourth Amendment violation.
|
|||||
| Zarska v. Higgins, No. 05-3204,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals reversed district court's judgment dismissing claim an inmate filed under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that a prison guard violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech when he filed a disciplinary charge against the inmate after he submitted an affidavit which supported a grievance another inmate filed against the guard.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
