 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McMillen v. Drive Fin. Servs., L.P., No. 05-3120,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a lender was proper because the lender did not violate Kan. Stat. § 8-135(c)(7) when it did not deliver title to a consumer after a retail installment contract was reinstated after the consumer's car was repossessed and she paid the amount due under the contract because the reinstatement was not a sale.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Langley, No. 05-3393, No. 05-3395,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a pro se inmate's § 1983 complaint against a police department and a police officer was affirmed because the complaint was untimely. Dismissal of another § 1983 complaint against a television network and a producer was affirmed because the inmate pled in his complaint that there was no state action component.
|
|||||
| Petersen (In re Contempt Order), No. 05-4191,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney was five minutes late to a pretrial detention hearing, the imposition of a summary criminal contempt sanction was not warranted under Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(b) and 28 U.S.C.S. § 636(e)(2), because, inter alia, there was no indication that his tardiness constituted "misbehavior" that obstructed the administration of justice.
|
|||||
| United States v. Holder, No. 04-1437,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from his sentence was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he did not allege any error in the application of the guidelines and the sentence was not imposed in violation of law under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3742(a) when, after the guidelines range was calculated, the sentence was imposed based on the plea agreement.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez-Quintanilla, No. 05-2043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly ordered to serve a 15 month term of imprisonment for violating a supervised release that was consecutive with a 30 month term for illegal reentry subsequent to deportation. Although this sentence applied U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f) exactly as written, it was not an unreasonable sentence based on the facts.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 05-1049,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g), it was not an abuse of discretion to take judicial notice that a violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11351 was a felony, because the maximum possible sentence mattered for purposes of determining a felony conviction.
|
|||||
| Wyoming v. United States DOI, Nos. 05-8026, 05-8027, 05-8035,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims against federal agencies involving their alleged failure to manage and control gray wolf population in Wyoming and failure to initiate delisting of gray wolf as endangered species. Plaintiffs failed to identify final agency action, as required to satisfy statutory standing requirements under APA.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
