 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Haberman v. Hartford Ins. Group, Nos. 03-6338, 03-6340,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given that named insured endorsement did not limit insured's coverage to liability or in course of employment, and given that UM/UIM endorsement did not limit coverage to only while riding in covered vehicle, insured was entitled to UM/UIM coverage, even though she was not riding in covered vehicle.
|
|||||
| United States v. Baker, No. 05-7052,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two counts charging defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm affecting commerce were not multiplicitous under the Double Jeopardy Clause, because he possessed a handgun before providing it to a bank robber and reacquired possession of the handgun after the robbery; also, the sentencing enhancements were not erroneous.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez-Carrillo, No. 05-8078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by considering his prior conviction when reviewing the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors was rejected because, inter alia, the Government did need not to charge the "fact" of the prior conviction in the indictment and submit it to the jury.
|
|||||
| Walton v. Tesuque Pueblo, No. 04-2305 & 04-2310,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over a vendor's non-habeas challenges to a tribe's denial of his permit because he successfully availed himself of the tribal forum, which dismissed his action as barred by sovereign immunity, thus, the exception to the rule that ICRA did not waive sovereignty did not apply.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
