 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Herrera v. Lufkin Indus., No. 04-8089,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment dismissing an employee's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 and Title VII hostile environment claims was proper because the alleged harassment, which included derogatory references to the employee's race and a supervisor's refusal to shake the employee's hand, was not severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms or conditions of employment.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Ortiz, No. 05-1555,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certificate of appealability to challenge the denial of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition was denied because it was not reasonably debatable that an inmate procedurally defaulted his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim by not raising it before the state courts.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Beck, No. 05-5196,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court denied the inmate's application for a COA under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253 where the district court correctly concluded that the trial court's failure to give an accomplice instruction was harmless error since the court's failure to instruct the jury on that issue did not make the inmate's trial fundamentally unfair.
|
|||||
| United States v. Isaac-Sigala, No. 05-2089,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for violations of 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D), and 846 were affirmed. Defendant's participation in smuggling operation easily surpassed minimal requirement of participation for a slight moment; moreover, the record supported jury's conclusion that defendant took some act to facilitate the group's criminal purpose.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ward, No. 04-6066,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where manufacturing items were found at the scene of a fire that cause the death of two people, defendant's conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841 and 846 was upheld because, inter alia, there was sufficient evidence and his prior convictions were properly admitted; the restitution order was vacated.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
