 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ainsworth v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 3 , No. 06-5126,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substitute teacher's ADA claims were properly dismissed on summary judgment; the teacher failed to show that the decision to remove him from an approved list because of inappropriate behavior in a classroom was motivated by discriminatory animus or that the school district's reason for its decision was a pretext for discrimination.
|
|||||
| Andrews v. Heaton, Nos. 06-6215, 06-6253, 06-6279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the father had a history of vexatious pro se filings, and the district court provided a mechanism under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 by which he could receive approval for future pro se filings, the restriction was modified to be more narrowly tailored to cover pro se filings in or related to the subject matter of the father's three federal actions.
|
|||||
| Enderwood v. Sinclair Broad. Group, Inc., No. 06-6232,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Entry of summary judgment in favor of employers was affirmed because a former employee failed to show that the reason for firing him was a pretext for age discrimination in violation of the ADA, he abandoned his public-policy tort claim, and his employer's policy not to pay accrued vacation pay overrode his claim for unpaid wages.
|
|||||
| Jacobs v. Looney, No. 06-2357,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's request for a COA was denied because his habeas petition was time-barred under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244 since he filed his petition in federal court almost nine years after the limitations period had run, and was not entitled to equitable tolling since he did not face extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from pursuing his claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. Herring, No. 06-3161,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in the procedural component of defendant's non-guidelines, 27-year sentence and given defendant's actions during his crimes--taking six hostages, putting his gun to at least one hostage's head, shooting at the police, attempting to hijack an airplane--the sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morales-Morales, No. 06-3274,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A COA to challenge the denial of a prisoner's "true" Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion was denied because jurists of reason would not have disagreed with dismissal of the motion as untimely; as for the prisoner's Blakely issue, the motion was construed as a successive § 2255 petition and denied because it did not meet statutory requirements.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rice, No. 06-5138,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A traffic stop was not unduly extended by running a background check or removing occupants and such actions did not require additional reasonable suspicion. A defendant's serious criminal record taken together with other facts provided reasonable cause for an officer to believe that he was armed and dangerous to justify a pat-down search.
|
|||||
| Valdez-Sanchez v. Gonzales, No. 05-9506,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the alien was ordered excluded, reentered, married a United States citizen, and sought and was granted an adjustment of status prior to the effective date of IIRIRA, DHS could not retroactively apply 8 U.S.C.S. § 241(a)(5) to reinstate a previous removal order. Therefore, DHS's order of removal was vacated.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
