 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ali v. Reeves, No. 06-1317,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's § 1983 complaint was properly dismissed because plaintiff had an adequate post-deprivation remedy, since Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-118 waived immunity for suits against state employees, and he could have filed a claim against the correctional officers using the claim procedure outlined in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-109.
|
|||||
| Klesch & Co. v. Liberty Media Corp., No. 05-1206,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Objection to the misappropriation jury instruction on the ground that it provided that the company's misappropriation claim required proof that the corporation had profited from the misappropriation was denied where what the company sought was an instruction on conversion, but since its claim was for misappropriation, that argument was unavailing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cachucha, No. 06-2215,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the government breached its promise to recommend a guidelines-sentence when a prosecutor remarked that he had problems with a guidelines-sentence, it was too low, and made no sense, the court reversed defendant's sentence. Because defendant had not sought to withdraw his plea, resentencing before a different judge was ordered.
|
|||||
| United States v. Martinez, No. 06-1226,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motions to suppress evidence from a vehicle search and to suppress wiretap conversations were properly denied; an officer developed reasonable suspicion during a traffic stop to justify defendant's continued detention and the government properly established the necessity for the wiretap.
|
|||||
| Williamson v. Sena, No. 06-2103,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The entry of judgment against plaintiff taxpayers was affirmed. The court agreed with defendant IRS employees that the appeal was frivolous, deserving penalty, and imposed sanctions of $ 8,000. Because monetary sanctions had not deterred the taxpayers from filing frivolous litigation, the court imposed filing restrictions against them.
|
|||||
| Bernate v. Gonzales, No. 06-9540,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an alien did not affirmatively argue that any decision he made during his criminal proceedings demonstrated objective reliance on the availability of former § 212(c) relief, and the record revealed nothing about his criminal proceedings except the fact of his conviction, he failed to show that he qualified for relief under Hem v. Mauer.
|
|||||
| Timmerman v. U. S. Bank, N.A., No. 06-1185,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for employer was affirmed on employee's sex and age discrimination claims pursuant to Title VII and the ADEA because there was no showing of pretext in the termination of the employee, a bank branch manager, for refunding 31 overdraft charges, totaling $ 1,099, to two coworkers' accounts in violation of company policy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Valgara, No. 06-1100,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was affirmed because the record demonstrated that the district court correctly applied the guidelines and considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)'s factors making it procedurally reasonable, and because the sentence was within the guidelines, it was entitled to a presumption of substantive reasonableness that defendant failed to rebut.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
