 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ariatti v. Edwards, No. 05-1510,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's § 1983 suit against judge for alleged constitutional violations arising from issuance of bench warrant for plaintiff's failure to pay or appear in connection with citation, was frivolous under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Judge was entitled to absolute immunity because suit arose from actions taken in her official capacity as judge.
|
|||||
| Bolden v. City of Topeka, No. 04-3306,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in dismissing claims under Rooker-Feldman. Allegations underlying federal claim would have been identical absent state-court proceeding. Dismissal of defendants was proper because of untimely service, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); plaintiff did not benefit from dismissal occurring less than 120 days after filing of second amended complaint.
|
|||||
| Chapman v. Ward, No. 05-6321,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A pro se state inmate's request for a COA was denied, and his appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief was dismissed because he had not met the standards for the issuance of a COA.
|
|||||
| Ramirez v. Santa Fe County Adult Det. Ctr., No. 05-2021,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where prisoner's appeal argued merits of § 1983 suit without any meaningful discussion of exhaustion, which was primary basis of district court's decision to dismiss action without prejudice under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a), and prisoner merely quarreled with district court's conclusions in summary fashion, appeal lacked arguable basis in law or fact.
|
|||||
| United States v. Flores, No. 05-2146,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed. It was clear that defendant lacked standing to challenge the stop of the Pontiac. Not only was the record devoid of any evidence indicating that defendant had a possessory or property interest in the Pontiac, defendant's counsel admitted as much during the hearing on the motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| United States v. Leaf, No. 05-7078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appellate court denied a pro se federal inmate's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion to vacate because his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel failed and the inmate had not met the standard for the issuance of a COA.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
