 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| EEOC v. PVNF, L.L.C., No. 06-2011,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that a person who owned a car dealership made derogatory comments about women and that dealership did not discipline male employee who call a female sales manager a "bitch" was sufficient to raise a question of fact concerning EEOC's claim that the manager was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
|
|||||
| Holguin v. Burge, No. 06-2174,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs in their third 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 case addressing a search of a residence and seizure of its occupants because dismissal based on plaintiffs' and counsel's misconduct in an earlier case was appropriate, following application of Ehrenhaus factors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hildreth, Nos. 06-3070, 06-3112,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated where none of the court's reasons supported a substantial divergence from the advisory U.S.S.G. range because the reasons did not distinguish defendant or his offense from the ordinary defendant upon which the U.S.S.G. sentence was calculated and the court expressly disregarded 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(6).
|
|||||
| Daneshvar v. Graphic Tech., Inc., No. 06-3242,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not clearly err in its factual finding that the employee had not exhausted his administrative remedies as to his wrongful discharge claim under Title VII, and it properly dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the employee could not amend his defective allegations of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1653.
|
|||||
| Nazaruk v. eBay, Inc., No. 06-4228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pro se appellant's brief failed to identify any reversible error and the district court affirmed for substantially the same reasons as stated in a magistrate judge's thorough report and recommendation which the district court had adopted.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gerhartz, No. 07-4009,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an appeal fell within the scope of a waiver of appellate rights, defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and enforcing the waiver would have not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the waiver was enforceable and the appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Muba, No. 07-3017,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal waiver was enforceable under the factors of United States v. Hahn because defendant's mere dissatisfaction with the district court's decision to depart from the USSG to a lesser extent than recommended by the government under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 was insufficient to grant defendant a right to appeal.
|
|||||
| Young v. Sirmons, No. 05-6282,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 15, 2007, Decided , May 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas relief was properly denied because: a state court applied the correct principles in admitting identification evidence that defendant alleged was tainted by a show-up procedure; the evidence was sufficient to support a murder in the first degree conviction; lesser included instructions were not required; and counsel was not ineffective.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
