 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bevan v. Lee County SO, No. 06-12067 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A § 1983 suit alleging Fourth Amendment violations based on plaintiff's eviction from real property was properly dismissed on summary judgment against sheriff's deputies who stood by to keep the peace; also, the private persons who removed chattels from the land did not act under color of state law merely because the deputies were present.
|
|||||
| Bohorquez v. United States AG, No. 06-12260 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: That portion of a petition for review challenging the BIA's affirmation of an IJ's order of removal was dismissed because it was untimely, and the court lacked jurisdiction; that portion of the petition addressing the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider was denied because the issue had been abandoned.
|
|||||
| Escobar-Loaiza v. United States AG, No. 06-12750 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: That part of a petition for review challenging the BIA's final order of removal affirming an IJ's underlying decision was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since the petition was untimely, and that part of the petition challenging the BIA's denial of the alien's motion to reopen was denied since the alien's arguments did not address that decision.
|
|||||
| Fuenmayor v. United States AG, No. 06-11542 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner argued motion to reopen fell under "changed circumstances" exception to 90-day rule, but determination that she did not present sufficient evidence of materially changed political conditions was not arbitrary or capricious; articles and letters offered general information, much of which was available at the time of initial merit hearing.
|
|||||
| Strategic Capital Res., Inc. v. Citrin Cooperman & Co., LLP, No. 06-11520,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment of a district court was affirmed because it did not abuse its discretion in denying a company leave to amend the pleadings, it correctly granted summary judgment in favor of an independent auditor on the company's breach of fiduciary duty claim, and holding for the auditor on the company's negligence claim was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Tolz v. Gawlick (In re Forex Fid. Int'l), No. 06-10771 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's affirmation of a bankruptcy court's decision not to avoid as preferences certain payments made to a debtor's creditors was affirmed as the trustee did not show that the district court's finding that the transactions with two creditors satisfied the requirements of the ordinary-course-of-business defense was clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Tolz v. Hardin (In re Forex Fid. Int'l), No. 06-10672 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Record contained deposition testimony of third party who gave money to debtor to buy foreign currency and, after conducting trades, requested and received balance of funds invested with debtor; therefore, record contained evidence that returning invested funds to customers was part of ordinary course of debtor's business, 11 U.S.C.S. § 547(c)(2).
|
|||||
| United States v. Arroya, No. 02-10368,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case remanded from the United States Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of the Booker decision, defendants' sentences were vacated, and the case was remanded because the district court made factual findings that went beyond those found by the jury and applied the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Barnett, No. 06-12338 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably in refusing to allow defendant to withdraw guilty plea, as court provided lengthy examination of Buckles factors and found that totality of the circumstances did not suggest defendant had "fair and just reason" for seeking withdraw; record supported district court's findings on Buckles factors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia, No. 05-16535 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2007, Decided , January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse discretion in determining defendant failed to provide fair and just reason for withdrawing guilty plea, as plea agreement and colloquy unambiguously established that defendant understood at time of plea that estimates given by counsel or government were merely predictions and not guarantees.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
