 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dolenz v. United States, No. 03-6350,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Awards of $ 4,000,000 to a husband for pain and suffering and $ 2,000,000 to a wife for loss of consortium in a FTCA claim were affirmed because they did not shock the conscience where there was as ample evidence of the pain and suffering experienced by the husband as a result of an accident and of the emotional distress suffered by his wife.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Cummings, No. 05-3180, No. 05-3262,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of Kansas Tort Claims Act claims for lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332 was remanded to determine an inmate's domicile because the district court failed to afford him an opportunity to rebut a challenge to a claim of Florida citizenship in his complaint.
|
|||||
| Tiger v. Workman, No. 05-5192,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A request for a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) to challenge the denial of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 was denied because an erroneous jury instruction on the elements of forcible oral sodomy under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 888 did not merit reversal since an inmate's counsel invited the error by agreeing to the instruction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vences-Flores, No. 05-1157,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence of 57 months' imprisonment for a violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was found to be reasonable and affirmed because the district court thoroughly considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors and properly calculated the sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
|
|||||
| Washington v. Ward, No. 05-6403,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a prisoner's conviction became final on June 21, 2002, his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition was properly dismissed as untimely because he had until June 21, 2003, to timely file a federal habeas action and he filed his federal habeas corpus petition on June 17, 2005; his post-conviction proceeding did not toll the limitations period.
|
|||||
| Zornes v. Jones, No.05-6402,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner was not entitled to a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 because his habeas petition was properly dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244 since the one-year period of limitations began running 90 days after the conviction and sentence were affirmed and he was not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
