 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Diaz v. Friel, No. 05-4032,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certificate of appealability would not issue under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) following a district court's denial of a state prisoner's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition because reasonable jurists could not debate whether several of prisoner's constitutional claims were unexhausted or whether ineffective assistance of counsel claims lacked merit.
|
|||||
| Lawler v. QuikTrip Corp., No. 04-5132,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer properly was awarded summary judgment on ADA discrimination claim because employee failed to show she was disabled under 42 U.S.C.S. § 12102(2). She did not show that her impairment substantially limited her major life activities of walking or standing, as her testimony showed she could perform activities involving standing and walking.
|
|||||
| McMahan v. Jordan, No. 05-7115,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: COA would not issue following dismissal of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition because reasonable jurists would not debate whether district court was correct in dismissing petition as untimely. Limitations period expired two years before petition was filed, and state post-conviction motion filed after expiration of limitations period had no tolling effect.
|
|||||
| Mo's Express, LLC v. Sopkin, No. 05-1036,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in dismissing a lawsuit based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because only one plaintiff was a plaintiff in the prior state-court action at issue, and the plaintiffs in the instant action sought relief that would not reverse or undo the relief granted in the state-court judgment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carter, No. 04-5179,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that law enforcement officers had enough evidence to make a limited seizure for the purpose of further investigation of occupants who were in a car that was parked in front of a house where drugs were found two weeks earlier, and it affirmed district court's judgment denying defendant's motion to suppress drugs police found.
|
|||||
| United States v. Moore, No. 04-5172,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On an inmate's appeal from a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion, the court denied a COA because the district court's conclusions were not reasonably debatable considering the record and the filings. There was no intervening change in the law that justified an exception to the inmate's prior procedural default.
|
|||||
| Henderson v. Echostar Communs. Corp., No. 05-1473,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer and the associated individuals were properly granted summary judgment dismissing an ADA action because the employee was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA when the employer was not made aware of any cognitive impairments until after he was fired and the record was replete with evidence of his substandard performance.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. Golder, No. 04-1323,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that although the one-year period which state inmate had under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) to seek habeas relief in federal court was tolled while state court considered his motion under Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(b), seeking reduction in his sentence, one-year period had expired by time he filed his petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254.
|
|||||
| United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, No. 04-3230,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deputy did not unlawfully detain defendant under the Fourth Amendment where the deputy's questioning defendant about his travel plans and vehicle ownership was permissible, and the deputy's questioning defendant while writing the warning did not appreciably lengthen the detention.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dago, No. 04-1184,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court failed to instruct the jury that they had to agree unanimously on the predicate underlying violations for an inmate's continuing criminal enterprise conviction, he was not entitled to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255, because the error was harmless; arguments regarding habeas delay and ineffective assistance were rejected.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
