 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abdulhaseeb v. Ward, No. 05-6054,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1)(A) to challenge the denial of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas petition was denied because claims pertaining to an inmate's improper placement in a restricted housing unit challenged the conditions of his confinement and had to be brought under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 after he exhausted his administrative remedies.
|
|||||
| Bowman v. Neal, No. 05-1117,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was properly denied 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 relief on claim that trial court erred by admitting into evidence stepson's testimony from inmate's first trial during his second trial because limitations placed on defense counsel's cross-examination during first trial were not so severe as to call into question the reliability of stepson's testimony.
|
|||||
| Clarenson v. Golder, No. 05-1071,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A request for a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) to challenge the denial of a habeas corpus petition was denied because jurists of reason would not have found debatable the district court's ruling that the inmate had not yet exhausted his state court remedies under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(b)(1)(A) where two state proceedings were still pending.
|
|||||
| Clarenson v. Owens, No. 05-1090,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner's § 1983 complaint against government and corrections officials was properly dismissed for failure to plead with sufficient specificity that he exhausted each and every claim, as required by the PLRA, because, while he filed copies of administrative documents, it was not clear if and how those documents related to claims in his complaint.
|
|||||
| Crook v. Comm'r, No. 04-9015,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of a petition for redetermination of tax deficiencies was affirmed because it was untimely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 6213(a), and the only evidence under 26 U.S.C.S. § 7502 as to the timely mailing of the petition was a taxpayer's uncorroborated assertion that he submitted his petition to prison authorities.
|
|||||
| Greschner v. Cooksey, No. 05-1124,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a Bivens and Privacy Act case, an inmate's appeal was dismissed and his motion to proceed without payment of fees was denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(b) because his failure to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation was without justification. The firm waiver rule applied to the inmate's appeal.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. Oklahoma, No. 05-6184, No. 05-6199, No. 05-6237,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition to transfer state court post-conviction relief proceedings to federal court was properly dismissed because there was no state action to remove when the inmate was not allowed to file a post-conviction application there; the right of removal was available only to defendants; and he did not exhaust his remedies by seeking mandamus relief.
|
|||||
| Nagy v. Spence, No. 05-8108,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed prisoner's § 1983 action against a private attorney for refusing to represent prisoner in suit against federal medical facility because the attorney did not act under state law. The attorney was not a state official, did not act together with state officials, and did not obtain significant aid from state officials.
|
|||||
| Park Univ. Enters. v. Am. Cas. Co., No. 04-3197,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of an insured was affirmed because the district court correctly determined that the insurer had a duty to defend the insured in an underlying state action for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act under both the "bodily injury" and the "advertising injury" provisions of a commercial general liability policy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Boyd, No. 05-6315,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that the district court had discretion under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3584(a) to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment on defendant who was convicted of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), and it affirmed judgment sentencing defendant to 151 months' imprisonment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
