 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| APA Excelsior III L.P. v. Premiere Techs., No. 05-15936,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because sophisticated investors participating in an arms-length corporate merger had made their investment commitment and were legally committed to the merger before the merging company issued its registration statement, the presumption of reliance under 15 U.S.C.S. § 77k(a) did not apply and summary judgment to the merging company was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Fenby v. M/V Three D of Guernsey, No. 06-13100 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of the insurers was affirmed because a yacht had sailed out of the area covered by the insurance policy, and the term "Caribbean Waters" was not ambiguous, the "held coverage" clause of the policy did not apply, and the "agreed pay for loss" clause did not provide coverage.
|
|||||
| Glades Pharms., LLC v. Murphy, No. 06-12277,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court dismissal without prejudice of the claims and counterclaims of two drug companies and an individual was affirmed, as the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for failure to comply with its discovery orders. The parties were free to re-file their respective claims and counterclaims and had done so.
|
|||||
| Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Comm'rs, No. 06-14042 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal without prejudice of a § 1983 case because appellees were not timely served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) was reversed, and the case was remanded because, while the running of the statute of limitations did not require that the district court extend time, the district court at least at to consider that factor.
|
|||||
| Meza v. United States AG, No. 06-12221 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied because an IJ correctly found that the alien failed to demonstrate past persecution because his encounters with members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia were not severe enough to constitute persecution, and he did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.
|
|||||
| Molina v. United States, No. 06-14160 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Retic v. United States, No. 06-11799 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court improperly treated state inmate's pro se motion to compel as 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion or 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition because inmate was not in federal custody; district court should have treated motion as habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 2241 and 2254 because he was in state custody and was challenging state convictions.
|
|||||
| United States v. Acosta, No. 06-13837 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's concurrent 135-month sentences for violating 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 1903(a), (g) and (j) (current versions at 46 U.S.C.S. §§ 70503(a) and 70506) and 21 U.S.C.S. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) were affirmed because the district court did not err in denying him a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 mitigating role reduction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cooper, No. 06-11829 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 57-month sentence for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) was affirmed because the district court correctly calculated the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months and expressly considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) sentencing factors; the sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
