 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Colbert v. Ward, No. 05-6314,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate was denied a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his habeas claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his conclusory and vague allegations regarding counsel's professionally unreasonable conduct during the plea process were insufficient to show that counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient.
|
|||||
| Fletcher v. Golder, No. 05-1349,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a prisoner sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254, the district court properly dismissed his petition without prejudice because the state appellate process had not been ineffective, though the prisoner's appeal was still pending after two years. The prisoner had caused the delay by seeking extensions to obtain missing records.
|
|||||
| Garcia v. Bravo, No. 05-2159,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner was not entitled to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 based on the argument that his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, because he failed to show prejudice since there was not a reasonable probability that but for counsel's alleged failures, he would have decided not to plead guilty.
|
|||||
| Gregory v. Fort Bridger Rendezvous Ass'n, No. 04-8100,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where traders alleged that an organization violated the Sherman Act by refusing to permit them to sell their goods at an annual rendezvous, their Sherman Act § 1 claim failed because, under the per se rule, the act of denying the traders space at the rendezvous did not necessarily imply anticompetitive animus.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, No. 05-3313,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed plaintiff's § 1983 complaint against the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) and the Kansas Department of Labor (KDOL) because KDOR and KDOL were arms of the State of Kansas and, as such, were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment unless the state had waived immunity.
|
|||||
| Lyles v. Barnhart, No. 04-7074,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ properly found that a claimant was not entitled to social security disability benefits. Neither one of the acceptable medical sources indicated that his impairment was severe, and the ALJ properly discounted the opinion of a non-acceptable medical source.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Poppell, No. 06-5039,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's request for COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(1)(A) to appeal denial of § 2254 petition, which alleged evidence was insufficient to sustain state conviction for attempted manufacture of methamphetamine, was denied because rational trier of fact easily could have found essential elements of charged offenses given inmate's admissions.
|
|||||
| Sutro-Sandia Corp. v. Hurt (In re Sutro-Sandia Corp.), No. 05-2132,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Debtor's appeal from dismissal of its appeal from bankruptcy court's order modifying automatic stay to allow in Arizona bankruptcy case to proceed was dismissed as moot because debtor neither specified any relief appellate court could give him nor disputed creditor's assertion that Arizona proceedings he sought to stay had been concluded.
|
|||||
| United States v. Escamillo, No. 05-1311,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant, while a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was pending, sent two letters to the district court, complaining that his attorney did not include an issue that he had directed his attorney to raise in the motion, the district court did not err in not considering the claim, because his letters were not motions to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
