 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Apodaca v. City of Albuquerque, No. 05-2008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arrestee's challenge failed because the arrest would have been permitted by the Fourth Amendment if the police officer had probable cause to arrest her for any offense. She did not challenge below or in her appellate briefs defendants' contention and the district court's ruling that the officer had such probable cause.
|
|||||
| Holt v. Grand Lake Mental Health Ctr., Inc., No. 05-5031,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee with cerebral palsy was terminated, the employer was entitled to summary judgment as to her ADA claim because she was not "disabled" under the ADA since a rational jury could not find that she was substantially limited in the major life activities of "performing manual tasks" or "caring for herself."
|
|||||
| Huerta v. Gonzales, No. 04-9542,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the Government responded on the merits to an alien's late-filed appeal to a BIA determination that he was a removable alien, it forfeited its timeliness objection. The BIA appeals requirements were claim-processing rules and not jurisdictional.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Mullin, No. 05-6235,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court denied state prisoner's habeas claim that trial court violated due process by failing to instruct jury regarding parole eligibility requirements because omission of instruction did not render trial fundamentally unfair. COA was not warranted under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) because prisoner did not show denial of constitutional right.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Lambeth, No. 05-3207,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court order denying removal of state DOT suit against junkyard operator for abatement of nuisance per Kan. Stat. Ann. § 68-2205 was nonreviewable pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1447(d) because district court's remand order was based on procedural defect, operator was not federal officer, and claim did not arise under federal civil rights laws.
|
|||||
| Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Pittsburg, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc., No. 03-3134,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed; December 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a soft drink company and its subsidiary was reversed as to a bottling company's claims that the company failed to protect it from territorial encroachment and the subsidiary interfered with its customer relationships. A petition for rehearing was granted only to amend a statement of Kansas law on tortious interference.
|
|||||
| Seeley v. Chase, No. 05-2070,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the district court admitted evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 415 of a former police officer's prior sexual assaults, in an alleged sexual assault victim's § 1983 action, without conducting a recorded analysis of the evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 403, a remand was required to permit the district court to make the requisite analysis.
|
|||||
| Skinner v. Uphoff, No. 05-8098,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where inmates were granted injunctive relief in their class action suit involving prison conditions, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny certain inmates' post-judgment motions because, inter alia, notice was discretionary under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A), denial of appointment of new counsel was proper, and recusal was not warranted.
|
|||||
| Strickland v. Abbott, No. 05-8062,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The state inmate's request for a COA was denied, and his appeal was dismissed because he failed to make the showing necessary for a COA.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
