 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| King v. PA Consulting Group, Inc., Nos. 05-1351, 05-1369, 05-1460,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Noncompete provisions in an employment contract were enforceable because, applying Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(2)(a), the noncompete provisions gave an employer critical security in connection with its acquisition of another business. Thus, the contract fell within a statutory exception to Colorado's limitation of noncompete agreements.
|
|||||
| Smith v. United States Court of Appeals, No. 04-1468, No. 04-1470,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applicant's mandamus request could not be construed as a claim for injunctive relief under § 1983 since such relief was available only if the applicant could show he was deprived of a federal right and he failed to show that Colorado violated his federal rights by vesting exclusive jurisdiction of the regulation of lawyers in its supreme court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cardenas-Alatorre, No. 06-2101,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to suppress drugs found after a stop made pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-3-18(A) because, even if the statute against obscuring a vehicle's license plate was unconstitutional as applied to defendant, deputy did not act in an objectively unreasonable manner, and the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Goyer, No. 06-3412,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement, the court granted the government's motion to enforce the agreement and dismissed defendant's appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Trafny, No. 07-4027,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's notice of appeal from the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 motion was treated as an application to file another 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion; it was denied because defendant failed to make the prima facie showing required by § 2255, and in fact, he had already raised his challenge in one of his previous § 2255 motions.
|
|||||
| Troff v. Utah (In re Troff), No. 05-4244,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rivera v. Nelson, No. 06-1344,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals reversed district court's judgment dismissing action a state inmate filed against prison guards under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, on grounds that inmate did not exhaust his administrative remedies against all defendants before he filed suit, because U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Bock did away with total exhaustion requirement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
