 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fye v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, No. 04-6363,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commission administrator was not entitled to qualified immunity; given subject matter and frequency of inquiries of employee regarding supervisor's sexual harassment, juror could have concluded administrator pursued questioning for sexual gratification and conduct was severe or pervasive enough to violate Fourteenth Amendment equal protection.
|
|||||
| Harrell v. United States, No. 05-3179,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court correctly found that the discretionary function exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity implied in the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. §§ 741-752, insulated the United States from liability in appellants' action. Appellants failed to preserve any argument based on River and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C.S. § 33.
|
|||||
| Ibrahim v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., No. 05-5114,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for an insurance company on bad faith and breach of contract claims was upheld under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) because the insureds did not challenge the basis for the decision, which was that, under Oklahoma's choice-of-law rules, North Carolina governed and defeated the claims, or present a reasoned argument for applying estoppel.
|
|||||
| McDonald v. Coyle, No. 05-6313,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal of a husband's claims against his wife's former criminal defense attorney was affirmed because the husband failed to show that his wife was unable to bring her own claims of legal malpractice, fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice against the criminal defense attorney. The husband lacked standing.
|
|||||
| Uanreroro v. Gonzales, No. 04-9537,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that substantial evidence in the record did not support IJ's decision that an alien who applied for asylum was not credible when she testified that she would be subjected to female genital mutilation if she were returned to Nigeria, and the court reversed the BIA's order denying the alien's application and remanded the case.
|
|||||
| United States v. Baz, No. 05-2106,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's decision to give a deliberate ignorance instruction to the jury was affirmed because the facts of the case suggested that defendant had ample reason to be suspicious of the cargo he transported, but consciously avoided acquiring actual knowledge regarding its true contents, which was marijuana.
|
|||||
| United States v. Burns, No. 04-2334,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the appellate court could not say that the district court would not have given defendant a lesser sentence if it had known the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, the appellate court concluded that remand and resentencing in light of the remedial holding in Booker was appropriate in defendant's case.
|
|||||
| United States v. Chiquito, No. 05-2077,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing the jury to view the scene of the shootings because, inter alia, the government had numerous photographs of the area where the incident occurred. Additionally defendant, an off-duty Navajo Nation police officer, was not entitled to qualified immunity.
|
|||||
| Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth, No. 05-4102,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court upheld district court judgment finding that U.S. Forest Service had properly approved a plan to combat beetle infestation in a national forest because no violations of NEPA, of National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C.S. § 1600 et seq., or of federal APA had occurred and agency decision was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unlawful.
|
|||||
| Watters v. Ray, No. 04-7122,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate was procedurally barred from raising his claims under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241, challenging a prison disciplinary decision, the inmate's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not remove the procedural bar because the inmate did not have the right to counsel in an action for judicial review of a prison's disciplinary decision.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
