 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bernal v. Kline, No. 05-3274,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of a state prisoner's § 1983 action for allegedly illegal confinement because it was time-barred under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513(a)(4) regardless of which accrual date was used--the date he was transferred from one county jail to another or the date that he was released from custody.
|
|||||
| Bliss v. Franco, No. 04-2078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court improperly granted qualified immunity to the probation officers on the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claim where the allegations made by the individual regarding the search of her residence, if true, established a constitutional violation, and the law regarding a warrantless residential search was clearly established.
|
|||||
| Cummings v. Equitable Life & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 05-4085,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly ruled that plaintiff's state law claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, however, the dismissal should have been without prejudice. District court did not err by entering its ruling without mentioning plaintiff's pending motion for extension of time since plaintiff had already filed her response.
|
|||||
| Hull v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Department's Motor Vehicle Div., No. 05-2263,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's dismissal of a § 1983 action was affirmed because the suit against a state and a state employee in her official capacity were not permissible, and the action against the state employee in her individual capacity was time barred, pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-8, because it was filed nearly seven years after the alleged harm.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. Barnhart, No. 05-4170,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment to the employer on the employee's claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII where the absence of a policy did not create an inference of pretext flowing from the chief judge's loss of confidence in the highest ranking official in the office conducting an open extramarital relationship.
|
|||||
| Sperry v. McKune, No. 04-3472,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 was affirmed because defining "premeditation" as "to have thought over the matter beforehand" did not render the Kansas first-degree murder statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3401(a), indistinguishable from the second-degree murder statute, which required only an "intentional" killing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Eades, No. 05-4225,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence of 55 months in prison imposed by district court at resentencing upon defendant's conviction of possession of a firearm by a restricted person was affirmed. Application of Booker's remedial holding, which held that USSG was advisory, in sentencing for offense that predated Booker did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
|
|||||
| United States v. Franklin, No. 05-1174,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's counsel's motion to withdraw was granted and the appeal was dismissed where the record revealed that any argument counsel could have made as to whether defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into a plea agreement that contained a waiver of appellate rights under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 would have been frivolous.
|
|||||
| United States v. Henderson, No. 05-5086,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to withdraw guilty plea, which asserted plea was not knowing and intelligent due to medication defendant had been taking, because the record clearly showed that district court thoroughly interrogated defendant about his ability to enter plea, including ability to understand proceedings.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
