 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Nez v. BHP Navajo Coal Co., No. 05-2265,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Entry of summary judgment was affirmed because an employee supported all of her arguments with documents that were not submitted to the lower court and the appellate court was constrained from considering her appellate arguments. On de novo review, the court found that the district court applied the proper standards and reached the correct result.
|
|||||
| Schwartz v. Neal, No. 06-1396,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's order denying a state prisoner's motion to reopen was vacated because it needed to be treated as a successive petition since the prisoner asserted substantive claims challenging his conviction. The court construed the prisoner's notice of appeal as an implied application to file a successive petition and denied it.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Jones, No. 06-6364,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A COA was denied to a state prisoner because a state court's conclusions were not contrary to nor an unreasonable determination of federal law, nor involved an unreasonable determination of the facts; the court was not persuaded that jurists of reason would have disagreed with the district court's disposition of his § 2254 petition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mullane, No. 06-3362,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A COA was denied because the court agreed with the district court that defendant had not met the threshold set by Congress for issuance of a COA; defendant failed to meet the standard for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel and his argument that a prior conviction had to be determined by a jury for sentencing purposes was meritless.
|
|||||
| de Silva v. Pitts, No. 06-7046,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mother's motion, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to expedite return of her son to her custody in Canada was denied because the child's wish to stay in Oklahoma provided a basis that appropriately informed and supported a district court's decision to deny repatriation to Canada.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
