 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Butler v. Compton, No. 06-1274,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey did not bar an action plaintiff filed under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that a police officer violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because charges that were based on the officer's conduct were dropped when plaintiff pled guilty to unrelated charges.
|
|||||
| Forrester v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 06-3010,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of an ERISA benefits plan and its administrator was affirmed. The claimant's "full and fair review" argument was foreclosed by the court's prior holding that disclosure of consulting reports were not required until after the determination of an administrative appeal. The claimant's other claims were waived.
|
|||||
| Graham v. AG of Kan., No. 07-3018,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a petitioner was unable to show that reasonable jurists would have found the district court's conclusions debatable, the court denied his request for a COA to challenge the denial of his § 2254 petition. The court also agreed with the district court that petitioner failed to establish the standards for proceeding in forma pauperis.
|
|||||
| Summum v. Duchesne City, Nos. 05-4162, 05-4168, 05-4272 &, 05-4282,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the land transfer to the Lions Club was invalid under state law, the city had denied the religious organization access to a public forum, the city park, on the same terms it had granted to others, and did not assert any compelling interest for that restriction. Thus, the organization's First Amendment free speech rights were violated.
|
|||||
| Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, No. 06-4057,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Organization showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claim where the city had not demonstrated that application of its historical relevance criteria to restrict speech in the city park, a public forum, would have more likely than not been justified by the compelling interests of promoting the city's history.
|
|||||
| United States v. Davis, No. 06-1360,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant filed his habeas petition three years after his conviction became final and three months after the charges were dropped against a co-defendant who successfully suppressed drug and firearm evidence. A district court's conclusion that the petition was untimely was not subject to debate and defendant's request for a COA was denied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hudson, No. 06-6199,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A restitution order to pay a computer software company the amount that defendant stood to earn if he had actually sold the counterfeit software was reversed and vacated; defendant's appeal waiver did not deprive him of the right to appeal the legality of the restitution order, and the government failed to prove the company suffered any actual loss.
|
|||||
| United States v. Luke-Sanchez, No. 06-4141,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly instructed a jury that it could find defendant guilty of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime if it found that he acquired a gun by trading drugs for the gun because exchanging firearms for drugs promoted drug trafficking and met the "in furtherance of" element of 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c).
|
|||||
| United States v. Trotter, Nos. 05-3487 & 05-3488,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Warrantless searches of storage unit did not violate Fourth Amendment because consent was given by coconspirator whose position as lessee of unit and active participation in renting and using the unit gave him a sufficient relationship to the premises to justify searches based upon his consent, even though coconspirator was not given his own key.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
