 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Home Ins. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 05-10934,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer was properly entitled to summary judgment on a coverage dispute because there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff's acts constituted an "occurrence;" the conduct in question was deliberate and intentional, and the insurer had established that both prongs of South Carolina's intentional act exclusion.
|
|||||
| Ramos-Gomez v. Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc., No. 04-16234,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to enforce payment because settlement agreement did not clearly state, and record did not otherwise overwhelmingly indicate, that relevant provisions of agreement were interdependent and because defendants failed to adequately support claim that plaintiff breached agreement.
|
|||||
| Torres v. United States AG, No. 05-13714 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158, 1101(a)(42)(A) was denied because substantial evidence supported an IJ's conclusion that threatening phone calls were not so severe as to constitute past persecution, and there was no evidence that any persecution would have been due to an alien's political opinion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carlos-Santos, No. 05-10654 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because the district court committed no error in applying a 16-level U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) enhancement because defendant admitted to the existence of the convictions underlying the sentencing enhancement by failing to object to the presentence investigation report.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ingram, No. 05-11477 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 371 and 1344 was affirmed because her ex post facto Booker argument failed. Defendant had fair warning about the possible penalties she faced; no ex post facto principles encompassed by the Due Process Clause were implicated.
|
|||||
| United States v. Keel, No. 04-14270,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if admitting hearsay testimony at probation revocation hearing was error, it was harmless as sentence imposed after revocation of defendant's supervised release was reasonable, and he admitted to six supervised release violations, five violations relating to his drug use and one violation relating to his failure to report change in residence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Loggins, Nos. 05-11692, 05-11693, 05-11694 & 05-11932 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court committed plain error when it failed to state in writing its reasons for upward departure sentence, as required by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(c)(1) and 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(c)(2). but the error did not effect defendant's substantial rights because court articulated its reasons for departure on the record in two separate hearings.
|
|||||
| United States v. Oruardo, No. 05-10921 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The retroactive application of Booker's remedial opinion making the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines advisory did not violate the Due Process or Ex Post Facto Clauses, as defendant knew, when he committed the offense, that he could receive a life sentence and that his prior convictions would be used in calculating his applicable Guideline range.
|
|||||
| United States v. Taylor, No. 05-13384 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed as the government did not abuse its discretion pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement by not filing a downward departure motion under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(e) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 based on defendant's cooperation and assistance as the government had discretion whether to file the motion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
