 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ackerman v. Novak, No. 06-1464,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals dismissed former servicemember's motion seeking leave to file third petition seeking habeas review of his conviction by general court-martial because he was not convicted by "a court of the United States," as that term was defined by 28 U.S.C.S. § 451 and used in 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(a), and he did not have to obtain leave of court.
|
|||||
| Allen v. Loveridge, No. 06-4002,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 was incorporated in the Bankruptcy Rules as Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023, and any motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 had to be filed not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment that was the subject of the motion. Because the individual's motion to reconsider was filed more than 10 days after the order, it was untimely.
|
|||||
| Bufford v. Boeing Co., No. 06-3170,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee failed to establish a dispute of fact as to whether the employer's stated reason for demoting him was pretextual under Title VII where the employee's conversation with his supervisor fell short of establishing direct evidence of racial discrimination since there was not a single reference to the employee's race in any of the statements.
|
|||||
| Main v. Martin, No. 06-1478,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of prisoner's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was reversed because, after the district court's ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that failure to exhaust was an affirmative defense, and inmates were not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.
|
|||||
| Palacio v. United States, No. 06-2131,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Russell v. Sherman & Howard, LLC, No. 06-1056,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Troff v. Utah (In re Troff), No. 05-4244,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because principles of federalism did not permit a bankruptcy court to interfere with a state criminal sentence, 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(7) did not permit defendant, a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, to discharge his restitution obligation, which was imposed as part of a state criminal sentence and was payable to a private individual.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez, No. 06-4072,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On defendant's appeal of his sentence, government's motion to enforce an appeal waiver in its plea agreement with defendant was granted because factors for enforcement of appeal waiver, set forth in United States v. Hahn, were satisfied, and ineffective assistance of counsel argument had to be raised in a collateral 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 proceeding.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rhoads, No. 06-2115,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was denied where the inmate's claim was not based on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the U.S. Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable since Booker was not applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
