 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gilbertson v. AlliedSignal, Inc., No. 05-2248,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's finding on remand that the claimant was not disabled as defined by the ERISA plan was not clear error; also the district court did not err in refusing to supplement the record with reports that were available to plaintiff which she failed to give to the plan administrator, or in refusing to consider the Social Security decision.
|
|||||
| Gordon v. Estep, No. 05-1474,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a prisoner's certiorari petition with the state supreme court did not include all of the claims included in his federal 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition, he did not give the state courts an opportunity to resolve constitutional issues; thus, he was not entitled to a COA from the denial of his habeas petition for failure to exhaust.
|
|||||
| Herrera-Ceja v. Gonzales, No. 05-9510,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2) to hear an alien's claims that the BIA erred when it denied his request for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure because the alien did not raise a constitutional claim or question of law which court was empowered to hear under the REAL ID Act of 2005.
|
|||||
| Panjaitan v. Gonzales, No. 05-9565,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied because the court lacked jurisdiction to review the untimely asylum application, the alien waived his withholding of removal and CAT claims, and the transcript was not so deficient that the alien was denied due process.
|
|||||
| Sondh v. Gonzales, No. 05-9563,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not abuse its discretion when it denied an alien's motion to reopen removal proceedings after it ordered immigration officials to adjudicate a visa petition which the alien's wife filed in his behalf, and the court affirmed the BIA's decision denying the alien's motion.
|
|||||
| Trout Unlimited v. United States Dep't of Agric., Nos. 04-1317, 04-1346,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals from an order remanding a decision of the Forest Service granting a water company a permit to store water on national forest lands in that it violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they did not fall within the exception to the administrative-remand rule under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291.
|
|||||
| United States v. Apperson, No. 03-3368, No. 03-3369,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 796-day delay between indictment and the commencement of defendants' trial did not violate their rights under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3161, in part because continuances granted due to medical problems experienced by counsel for one of the two defendants were acquiesced in by the other defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. D'Armond, No. 05-3387,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Certificate of appealability would not issue under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c) to challenge dismissal of inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion because district court's determination that motion was untimely was not reasonably subject to debate. Section 2255, para. 6(3) did not apply because Booker did not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
|
|||||
| United States v. Denny, No. 05-2014,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an officer saw defendant try to hide a plastic bag of drugs in his passenger train sleeper, and the defendant disclaimed any ownership interest in the bag and its contents, the defendant abandoned the plastic bag and its contents, and had no standing to object on Fourth Amendment grounds to the agent's search of the bag and its contents.
|
|||||
| United States v. Marquez-Olivas, No. 05-2107,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's contention that his sentence for illegal reentry was unreasonable because he was "culturally an American" was insufficient to overcome the presumption of reasonableness applied to his properly calculated sentence within the guideline range or to show extraordinary circumstances warranting a downward departure for cultural assimilation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
