 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dye v. Barnhart, No. 05-5182,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of claimant's application for SSDI was remanded because the ALJ was required to set out his specific findings and his reasons for accepting or rejecting evidence at step three of the sequential process with respect to the claimant's heart impairment, which she asserted met the standards of 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 4.04.
|
|||||
| Hood v. Prisoner Health Servs., No. 05-3198,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claims by an inmate of deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment were properly dismissed as time barred, and there were no facts alleged tending to show that the inmate lacked access to the courts, which would have warranted a tolling of the limitations period under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-515(a).
|
|||||
| Smith v. EEOC, No. 05-2049,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was inadequate evidence to satisfy an element of a hostile-work-environment claim under Title VII, namely, that the conduct had to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment, since the only act alleged by the employee was the failure to give her an award.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sullivan, No. 05-1220,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A COA to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion was denied because petitioner failed to show that he had not raised his claims on direct appeal due to the ineffective assistance of counsel because taking into account prior convictions did not violate Apprendi and whether a prior conviction was for a crime of violence was unaffected by Booker.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jeter, Nos. 05-4186 and 05-4188,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reasonable suspicion supported the trooper's decision to briefly extend the stop and question defendants about the possible presence of contraband where the presence of numerous air fresheners with differing scents, coupled with open rear windows, led the trooper to reasonably suspect defendants had something to hide beyond body odor.
|
|||||
| United States v. Michel, No. 04-2214,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Language of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e) was sufficiently definite to let a person of ordinary intelligence know that if he committed three separate crimes on the same day against separate victims at separate locations, his sentence would be enhanced. Thus, the statute was not vague as applied to defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ramirez-Verdin, No. 05-4277,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326, the district court's reliance on a prior conviction to enhance his sentence was not erroneous, because the Government did not need to charge in the indictment and prove to the jury the fact of defendant's prior conviction before it could be used to enhance his sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vaca-Perez, No. 05-2244,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Characterization of defendant's prior convictions as crimes of violence was a question of law and not fact and therefore did not implicate the Sixth Amendment for the purpose of requiring the characterization of the offense to be charged in the indictment and proven to a jury. Thus, the district court did not commit constitutional Booker error.
|
|||||
| Watkins v. Comm'r, No. 04-9016,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consideration was paid for the right to receive future income, not for an increase in the value of the income-producing property. Under those circumstances, the sale of the taxpayer's future lottery payments to a third party did not represent a capital gain under I.R.C. § 1221(a) or I.R.C. § 1222(1), (3).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
