 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barnes v. United States, No. 05-3403,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though a pro se inmate whose FTCA suit was dismissed on summary judgment was entitled to liberal construction of pleadings due to his pro se status, status did not excuse noncompliance with minimum requirements imposed on oppositions to such motions; because opposition consisted of unsworn statements and not affidavits, defense judgment was proper.
|
|||||
| Calcari v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., No. 05-8104,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner's request for certificate of appealability to challenge dismissal of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was denied because reasonable jurists would not debate whether district court's dismissal of petition as untimely was correct. State petition for post-conviction relief did not toll federal limitations period where state petition was untimely.
|
|||||
| Dulworth v. Evans, No. 05-6351,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certificate of appealability to challenge the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas petition as time-barred was granted because, since the inmate timely and diligently exhausted his administrative remedies, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1)(D)'s limitation period did not commence until the decision rejecting his administrative appeal became final.
|
|||||
| Gilchrist v. Citty, No. 04-6402,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city and city employees were properly granted summary judgment in a former city forensic scientist's § 1983 First Amendment claim that she was fired in retaliation for complaining that a woman was sexually harassed because the three year lapse between her complaint and termination did not warrant an inference of retaliatory motive.
|
|||||
| Greenshields v. Indep. Sch. Dist. I-1016, No. 04-6195,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Record supported district court's judgment that school district decided not to reemploy teacher because she violated school policies, not because she wrote letters to administrators and sued the district, and court of appeals affirmed order granting summary judgment to school district on teacher's claim that it violated her First Amendment rights.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Fleming, No. 04-1166,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity on an inmate's claims that they violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment when they kept him in administrative detention because case law which existed at time of detention did not put officials on notice that inmate had a liberty interest in detention at issue.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Riddle, No. 04-4036,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court erred in granting summary judgment to a collection attorney, who asserted the bona fide error defense under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692k(c), after he attempted to recover statutory shoplifting penalties for a dishonored check, because a reasonable jury could conclude that the attorney was not entitled to the defense.
|
|||||
| Nutter v. Ward, No. 05-5205,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a state prisoner challenged the use of a dismissed escape charge to alter his security points and earned time credit, his equal protection, due process, and Fifth Amendment double jeopardy claims were properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915 because, inter alia, jeopardy never attached and the due process claim was not cognizable.
|
|||||
| Toomer v. City Cab, No. 05-4091,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for cab companies on an action alleging that the companies were required by the ADA to provide service to powered wheelchair users was affirmed because the Department of Transportation's definition of a "new vehicle" in 42 U.S.C.S. § 12184(b)(3), (5) as one that was not previously used was not arbitrary or capricious.
|
|||||
| United States v. Flores-Ocampo, No. 05-3257,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No Fourth Amendment violation occurred as defendant's unrestricted roadside consent to search the vehicle for drugs continued after defendant drove the vehicle to the shop as requested by the trooper; the consent authorized the trooper to search the vehicle's sunroof (where drugs were found) after trooper failed to find any drugs in the gas tank.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
