 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cothrum v. Hargett, No. 05-5220,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an inmate's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) to declare void the treatment of his prior Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion as a successive habeas corpus petition was affirmed because, although the treatment was error, the judgment was not void since the courts had jurisdiction and the inmate was not denied access to the courts.
|
|||||
| Randall v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., No. 04-5031,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a decedent assigned his interest in a settlement agreement with an insurer to his widow and she argued that she was entitled to the remaining payments, the federal court, pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 27.1 and Okla. Stat. tit. 20, §§ 1601-1611, certified two questions to the state court because there were unsettled questions of state law.
|
|||||
| Scott v. McKune, No. 05-3424,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate was not entitled to a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 based on arguments regarding insufficient evidence, jury instructions, closing statements, and a pretrial statement he made to police, because, inter alia, he failed to demonstrate that his trial was rendered fundamentally unfair, and certain claims were procedurally defaulted.
|
|||||
| Tabor v. Metal Ware Corp., Nos. 05-4155 and 05-4156,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Decided , May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court certified two questions as provided for by 10th Cir. R. 27.1 and Utah R. App. P. 41. Utah law was determinative of issues raised on appeal in products liability suit, and no Utah court had decided whether corporate successor had a duty to warn or whether Utah recognized "product line" exceptions to the general rule of successor nonliability.
|
|||||
| United States v. Becerra-Montes, No. 05-8112,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute drugs was affirmed because a finding that defendant was not a minor participant under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 was not clear error where there was nothing indicating that his role was minor other than his bare assertion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cozad, No. 05-8118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal of a 60-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine was dismissed because, since he received a sentence of a year of probation on a bad-check charge, his conviction was properly counted under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(c).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
