 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barfield v. Commerce Bank, N.A., No. 06-3087,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' § 1981 claim for race discrimination in the impairment of the ability to contract was reversed; if defendant bank effectively extended bill exchange services to persons of one race and not the other, that was sufficient to come within the ambit of § 1981.
|
|||||
| Groll v. Johnson, No. 06-1540,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of an inmate's § 1983 case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a) was vacated because the U.S. Supreme Court later rejected the total exhaustion rule in Jones v. Bock. The inmate's pro se complaint documented the grievances he filed with respect to his working conditions.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Gonzales, No. 05-9560,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal from a visa revocation order that was issued by a state center and affirmed by the BIA was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it fell short of a final removal order under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(1). A final order was also a prerequisite to application of § 1252(a)(2)(D). Nor did the APA confer jurisdiction over the appeal.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Sears Roebuck & Co., No. 06-6151,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly performed its gatekeeper role, and its decision to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert that a garage door opener was defective, as unreliable and irrelevant under Daubert and Fed. R. Evid. 702, was not an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Sosa-Valenzuela v. Gonzales, No. 05-9582,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ had to first issue an order of removal or make a finding of deportability to confer a court with jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252, and the BIA did not have the independent statutory authority to issue an order of removal in the first instance. Thus, since there was no finding of deportability by the IJ, the court was without jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Springer v. IRS ex rel. United States, No. 05-6387, No. 06-5123, No. 06-6268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that appeals which taxpayer filed from district court judgments dismissing three actions he filed against the IRS were frivolous and were filed for purpose of delaying payment of taxes he owed, and it affirmed district courts' judgments, granted Government's motion for sanctions, and imposed filing restrictions on taxpayer.
|
|||||
| United States v. Velarde, No. 06-2126,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred when it held that the suppressed evidence was immaterial without resolving the disputed question of whether the government suppressed information about the minor victim's alleged false accusations at school or allowing discovery to find the nature and veracity of the victim's accusations against her teacher and vice principal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
