 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Delkhah v. Moore, No. 06-3226,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed lawsuit filed by a tenant who claimed that Kansas Division of Housing Development and compliance manager who told his landlord that deposits that were paid to his bank account had to be counted to determine his entitlement to a housing subsidy violated 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 3604(b) and 3617 and his constitutional rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mendoza-Torres, No. 06-2200,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant had not demonstrated his family circumstance, when viewed in light of the other 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, was sufficiently compelling for the purpose of making his sentence at the bottom of the U.S.S.G. range unreasonable, and defendant had not otherwise demonstrated his sentence is unreasonable when viewed against those factors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Otero, No. 06-2226,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by simply approaching and knocking on the door of a house, and consent to search was not negated by the fact that defendant knew them to be police officers.
|
|||||
| Watson v. United States, No. 05-6262,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: All experts did not always have to render written reports under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) as a precondition to being permitted to take the stand because the rule contemplated that individuals who were employed by a party and did not regularly give expert testimony were not required to file reports, and the doctor met exactly that description.
|
|||||
| Bishop v. Long Term Disability Income Plan of SAP Am., No. 06-5097,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee's challenge to substantive denial of benefits under ERISA was remanded because the insurer's failure as plan administrator to address whether traveling was an essential duty of the employee's job at the time of his termination rendered its decision arbitrary and capricious.
|
|||||
| United States v. Butler, No. 06-5027,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in denying a justification instruction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 30 since defendant's evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to find the continuing urgent danger required for such an instruction and while defendant's alternatives may have been uncomfortable, a prompt surrender of the firearm was not impossible.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ivory, No. 05-3448,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court declined to address the merits of defendant's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on direct appeal because the district court had not yet had any opportunity whatsoever to develop a factual record or pass on the subject of defense counsel's performance in the first instance.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
