 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Sharif, Inc., No. 04-2272,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In affirming summary judgment for plaintiff franchisor, the appeals court agreed with the district court that no reasonable jury would have found that plaintiff acted unreasonably by withholding its consent to an informal purchase agreement of defendant's franchise when the proposed buyer was in default under his own franchise agreement.
|
|||||
| Gbogbo v. Gonzales, No. 05-9544,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien moved to reopen on the ground that her first attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel, the motion to reopen was properly denied as untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and equitable tolling was not available to extend the 90-day limitation, because the alien failed to prove due diligence.
|
|||||
| Harman v. Pollock, No. 04-4294,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of qualified immunity in a § 1983 action was reversed because there were disputes as to the reasonableness of officers' delay in realizing that they were at a separate residence not anticipated in a search warrant and as to whether a full scale search took place after they should have realized they were in the wrong residence.
|
|||||
| Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co., No. 04-7118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for a former employer on ADEA claims was reversed and remanded because it failed to provide the correct, mandated information under 29 U.S.C.S. § 626(f)(1)(H)(i) when it gave inaccurate information concerning the "decisional unit," and thus a release and wavier of ADEA claims was ineffective as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Simmons v. Bruce, No. 05-3379,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court judgment dismissing a prisoner's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition for habeas relief was affirmed because the prisoner had procedurally defaulted on his claims.
|
|||||
| Tanguma v. Golder, No. 05-1339,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's decision to dismiss the inmate's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 without prejudice was proper where the petition contained exhausted and unexhausted claims, and a district court faced with a mixed petition could dismiss the petition and allow the petitioner to return to state court to exhaust his claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. McGehee, No. 04-7095,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government provided sufficient evidence to convict defendant of possession of methamphetamine with an intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) where a jury could have reasonably inferred intent to distribute from defendant's possession of 49 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine.
|
|||||
| United States v. Orange, No. 05-6105,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the fair cross section requirement as the highest absolute disparity was only 3.57 percent. As petitioner could not satisfy the second element of Duren, he could not establish a prima facie case that the Western District of Oklahoma's jury pool selection procedure violated the Sixth Amendment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
