 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Everson v. Kan. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-3405,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's request for a COA, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2), was denied because reasonable jurists could not conclude that the limitations period was statutorily tolled beyond 1997 based on his actions in state court. Neither could a reasonable jurist conclude equitable tolling was appropriate. Additionally, he made no showing of actual innocence.
|
|||||
| Gales v. Gatterman, No. 07-3022,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A(b), a prisoner's § 1983 complaint because both the state district judge and prosecutor were protected from suit by absolute immunity, and there was no allegations that the prisoner's appellate attorneys acted under color of law.
|
|||||
| Gauthier v. Reynolds, No. 06-7049,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neither the pleading requirement of Steel nor the total-exhaustion requirement of Ross remained good law. From the Complaint, it was unclear whether the 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 parolee plaintiff satisfied PLRA's exhaustion requirement as to all claims or whether particular circumstances excused compliance. Order dismissing Complaint was reversed.
|
|||||
| Herry v. Gonzales, No. 06-9574,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An IJ complied with relevant case law by giving specific cogent reasons for not believing an alien's testimony about being dragged behind a motorcycle; substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the murder of petitioner's father was not persecution and that no protected ground for relief was implicated.
|
|||||
| Milligan v. Reed, No. 07-1024,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of the Jones decision, a pro se prisoner did not need to show in his § 1983 complaint that he administratively exhausted his claims. Rather, defendants had to raise failure to exhaust as an affirmative defense. Furthermore, plaintiff was free to proceed on his exhausted claims even if he had not exhausted others.
|
|||||
| NLRB v. United States Postal Serv., No. 06-9513,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(e), court of appeals ordered enforcement of an NLRB cease and desist order because supervisor's actions, along with multiple violations under 29 U.S.C.S. § 158(a)(1), (3), and (5) of a worker's rights guaranteed by § 7 of the NLRA, justified the NLRB's decision to craft a broadly-worded remedial order.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bedolla, No. 06-3225,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled, under the Fourth Amendment, to suppression of evidence because good faith exception applied. Affiant special agent, who participated in warrant's execution, reasonably believed fruits of investigation into informant's allegations sufficiently linked defendant to criminal activities and to residence which was searched.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mahan, No. 05-1518,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) was vacated and remanded for resentencing because, although possession of a firearm by a prohibited person was a strict liability crime, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(1) required the sentencing court to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense when developing an appropriate sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morales, No. 05-7048,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) was proper where under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 the court could attribute to defendant all of the reasonably foreseeable acts undertaken by his brother in furtherance of their jointly-undertaken criminal activity, and defendant failed to show that it was improbable that the weapon was connected to the offense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morris, No. 06-5162,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consistent with Begay, the court was bound to conclude that defendant's Oklahoma state conviction for "DUI Alcohol--Second Offense" qualified as a "violent felony" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e). In turn, defendant was properly sentenced to a statutory minimum sentence of 180 months under ACCA.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
