 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Greenlee v. United States Postal Serv., No. 05-3269,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court agreed that the individual failed to state a claim on which relief could have been granted because the complaints consisted of fanciful allegations that, even if true, could not have established that the United States Postal Service violated any legal obligation owed to him.
|
|||||
| United States v. Chavez-Diaz, No. 05-2288,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the appellate court did not have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3742 to review the district court's decision to deny a downward departure, it had jurisdiction post-Booker to review the sentence for reasonableness. Defendant's sentence, which conformed with that of similarly situated defendants, was reasonable under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez-Flores, No. 05-2274,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant did not raise any substantial contentions concerning non-Guidelines factors under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and the district court imposed a sentence that was within the Guidelines range, post-Booker precedents did not require the district court to explain on the record how the § 3553(a) factors justified the sentence.
|
|||||
| Guttman v. G.T.S. Khalsa, No. 03-2244,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Exxon Mobil, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine only applied to cases brought after the state proceedings ended. State proceedings had not ended when the doctor filed his federal court claim. Thus, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply and the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Henager v. Parker, No. 05-6385,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was not entitled to a COA after dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition, which was based on arguments that pseudoephedrine could not be part of the manufacture of "true" methamphetamine and that the Oklahoma legislature erred in finding pseudoephedrine a precursor substance. Jurists of reason would not have found dismissal debatable.
|
|||||
| McIntosh v. Metro. Tulsa Transit Auth., Nos. 05-5097 & 05-5113,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for employer was proper in employee's suit for discriminatory discharge based on race and age under Title VII and the ADEA. Employee's act of firing pepper spray into a restroom at a transit station where he worked was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharge, and the employee failed to raise an inference of pretext.
|
|||||
| Thome v. Roberts, No. 05-3367,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a state petitioner failed to show that the district court's procedural ruling, that his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition was untimely filed, was debatable among jurists of reason, the court denied his request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Herrera, No. 05-3057,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the arrestee did not have that notice, as he was in fact not a member of the class subject to the random administrative inspections of commercial vehicles, the trooper's warrantless stop of the arrestee violated the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Zunie, No. 04-2256,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals sustained defendant's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153 because evidence that defendant, a Native American, drove his truck at a high rate of speed while intoxicated and hit another vehicle showed that defendant acted recklessly and caused serious injury to a person who was riding in the other vehicle.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
