 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carter v. Troutt, No. 05-6239,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prison warden, medical staff, and physician were properly granted summary judgment on an Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983 because, given evidence that they consistently monitored a prisoner's health and provided him with care, there was no genuine issue as to whether they acted with deliberate indifference by failing to prescribe a certain drug.
|
|||||
| Coit v. Zavaras, No. 05-1045,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where prison employees did not negate an Eighth Amendment claim that they were deliberately indifferent for more than a year to a prisoner's safety, a district court improperly shifted the burden of production to the prisoner by granting them summary judgment based on the fact that the employee who raped the prisoner was removed.
|
|||||
| Cooper v. Golder, No. 05-1481,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A state prisoner was denied a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 because his habeas petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244; certain postconviction motions did not toll the limitations period, because these motions were filed outside Colorado's three-year time period for collaterally attacking the conviction and were not properly filed.
|
|||||
| Ebel v. King (In re Ebel), No. 05-1173,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The bankruptcy court's acceptance of a settlement between the debtor's ex-spouse and the bankruptcy trustee was affirmed because the settlement was not invalid under 11 U.S.C.S. § 541(a)(6), the bankruptcy court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9019, and the bankruptcy court made the necessary findings.
|
|||||
| Fuller v. Kansas, No. 05-3360,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Section 1983 complaint was properly dismissed because a state was entitled to sovereign immunity and because the prisoner did not set forth facts explaining how he was falsely arrested or imprisoned by a sheriff or how a county was involved and, thus, failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for a Fourth Amendment violation.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Barnhart, No. 05-6248,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that ALJ's decision finding that a claimant was not entitled to SSDI benefits because there was no evidence she was impaired in 1995 when her insured status expired, even though there was evidence she suffered a severe mental impairment in 1989 and 1998, was supported by substantial evidence, and it upheld the ALJ's decision.
|
|||||
| Pratt v. Mullin, No. 05-6008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals reversed district court's judgment finding that petition which inmate filed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 was filed one day after statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) expired. Statute was tolled while inmate sought postconviction relief in state court in 2004, and magistrate failed to recognize that 2004 was a leap year.
|
|||||
| Terra Venture, Inc. v. JDN Real Estate-Overland Park, L.P., No. 04-3492,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were entitled to summary judgment in plaintiffs' action concerning division of labor and capital associated with undeveloped property. No provision in agreements obligated defendants to develop property; further, parties did not intend to form joint venture, and defendants did not therefore undertake fiduciary duty.
|
|||||
| United States v. Larsen, No. 05-4203,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals denied inmate's request that it issue COA so he could appeal district court's judgment denying habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 because reasonable jurists could not debate district court's judgment that inmate's constitutional rights were not abridged during trial on drug charges, even though he was tried with a codefendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
