 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baird v. Caroche, No. 05-1472,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of § 1983 complaint as legally frivolous was affirmed where prisoner's detainer, for outstanding probation-violation charge, was not type covered by Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, and his reliance upon it was misplaced, and mere fact that state detainer could have affected conditions of confinement did not entitle him to relief.
|
|||||
| Benson v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., No. 05-6220,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a motion to vacate an arbitrator's award granting summary judgment to a plan on an ERISA claim on the grounds that an untimely appeal meant that an employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies was affirmed because she admitted that her appeal was late and her attorney-negligence argument was raised for the first time on appeal.
|
|||||
| Coffman v. Veneman, No. 05-6218,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of employment discrimination complaint on grounds of claim and issue preclusion was affirmed where it made no difference whether former employee first alleged claims based on reprisals for whistleblowing in instant action because those claims could have been alleged in first action because they were predicated upon employee's employment.
|
|||||
| Heinken v. Higgins, No. 06-6003,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the inmate had until June 5, 2005 to file his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus, and he did not file the petition until July 2005, the appellate court denied the certificate of appealability for failing to comply with the one year statute of limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
|
|||||
| Madrid v. Barnhart, No. 05-2176,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's affirmation of the denial of Social Security disability benefits was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to remand to the Commissioner of Social Security because the ALJ's failure to develop the record affected the disability analysis as a whole.
|
|||||
| Tijerina v. Carver, No. 05-4276,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Bodenheimer, No. 05-2221,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed because his contention that he did not have the necessary mens rea to be convicted of the charged offenses directly contradicted his plea agreement, the sentence was reasonable, and his right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated during a plea hearing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carney, No. 05-3047,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted, and the appeal was dismissed since the only apparent basis for an appeal was that defendant was entitled to a new trial, but the district court had rejected defendant's evidence as without foundation and plainly incredible. The district court was not obligated to grant him a new trial to test such evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez-Rojo, No. 05-2280,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's eight level increase in the USSG range of defendant's sentence for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was affirmed because he had committed an aggravated felony as defined by 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43) even though the state offense was classified as a Class A misdemeanor under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
