 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brackens v. Best Cab, Inc., No. 06-3388,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiff's complaint alleging racial discrimination and infliction of terror was frivolous as it was based on gross speculation and alleged no facts in support of the claims.
|
|||||
| In re Nakagawa, No. 06-1473,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a complaint not only failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and 10(a), it failed to allege sufficient facts to show the existence of a justiciable case or controversy; thus, the district court should have dismissed it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the case was remanded for that purpose.
|
|||||
| Omar-Muhammad v. Williams, No. 06-2308,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: COA was denied because the U.S. Supreme Court had rejected a claim for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) relief involving what petitioner himself conceded was a situation very similar to his, and the Court's new limitations period ruling in Artuz did not supply the sort of "extraordinary circumstance" needed for reopening habeas petitions like petitioner's.
|
|||||
| Padilla-Plancarte v. Gonzales, No. 06-9526,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA's denial of an alien's motion to reopen was affirmed because the alien was not eligible to adjust his status under the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act) as there was nothing in the LIFE Act that superseded the statutory bar placed on a removed alien's application for adjustment of status by 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i).
|
|||||
| Rowell v. King, No. 06-3149,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowners' claim for violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights was dismissed where they failed to meet the state action requirement since their conclusory allegations of a conspiracy or joint action with the police officer were insufficient to state a § 1983 claim, and they provided no facts as to the nature of any concerted activities.
|
|||||
| United States v. Andrus, No. 06-3094,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no Fourth Amendment violation as to search of computer located in defendant's bedroom because circumstances indicated that father, who had access to room and paid internet bill, had mutual use of computer and thus had apparent authority to consent to search. An email address associated with father was used to procure child pornography.
|
|||||
| United States v. Eaton, No. 06-6328,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant filed a second 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion without authorization, a district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide it and acted correctly in transferring the 2255 motion to the court. Thus, the district court acted properly in dismissing defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion which challenged the transfer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
