 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. McKune, No. 06-3430,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's application for a COA pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) was denied because court could not consider prisoner's habeas application based on argument that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue of marital privilege. State courts found that there was no common-law marriage at the time of trial.
|
|||||
| Glazing Concepts, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., No. 06-6152,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insured was denied prejudgment interest on contract claim against insurer because, applying Okla. Stat. tit. 36, § 3629(B), as developed in Taylor v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., insured's loss, when proof of loss was denied, was not for liquidated amount or for amount that could be made ascertainable using well-established market values.
|
|||||
| United States v. Davila-Salvatierra, No. 06-2053,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Seventy-month sentence was affirmed as both procedurally and substantively reasonable; the district court's explanation and rationale were adequate, and after assessment in light of the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence was reasonable considering the seriousness of the underlying offense as well as defendant's criminal history.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sanchez, No. 06-4032,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant had not shown that he did not waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel in his prior convictions, they were properly included in his criminal history category since he failed to show that they were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and failed to overcome the presumption of regularity attached to final judgments.
|
|||||
| Franco v. Regents of the Univ. of Colo., No. 06-1136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a Rehabilitation Act suit against a medical school, a student challenged a jury verdict against him, claiming that an instruction misled the jury on the meaning of "qualified." The challenge failed because regardless of the merits of the instruction, it could not have prejudiced the student since the jury found him to be qualified.
|
|||||
| Godwin v. Southwest Research Inst., No. 06-4055,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's ADEA claim was properly dismissed because he failed to timely file a charge with the EEOC and he failed to establish active deception in order to toll the limitations period; his ERISA claim failed because he did not show that his employer's reason for firing him, namely, a lack of work in his skill set, was pretextual.
|
|||||
| Huber-Happy v. Estate of Rankin, No. 06-3356,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's award of attorney fees to the estate under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1447(c) was affirmed because removal of the state-court probate proceeding was objectively unreasonable where the parent was allegedly an attorney, and it was well-established that federal courts would not assume general jurisdiction over state-court probate matters.
|
|||||
| Rucobo-Rios v. Milyard, No. 06-1503,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner was not entitled to a COA to appeal denial of his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition, which claimed that the state court had lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him, because habeas petitions under § 2241 were properly used to attack the execution of a sentence and were not the proper vehicle for challenging the validity of a criminal conviction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
