 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Angodo v. United States AG, No. 05-13819 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Decided , February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the IJ's determination that an alien was not credible and failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or any nexus between her alleged attackers' actions toward her and her husband and her religion or political opinions; thus, she was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT.
|
|||||
| Howard v. City of Robertsdale, No. 05-10023,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Decided , February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in granting summary judgment for city because no basis existed, under Title VII or § 1983, on which to hold city liable for supervisor's harassing conduct. There was no evidence of custom or policy condoning sexual harassment and, despite clear antiharassment policy, employee unreasonably delayed in reporting harassment.
|
|||||
| Rolling v. Crosby, No. 05-14252,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Decided , February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas petitioner inmate's Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance claim failed. The inmate's assertion that the state court should not have credited the testimony of trial counsel because it was merely a cover-up for their mistake was insufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to the credibility finding of the state court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mariscal, No. 04-15129,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Decided , February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress properly was denied because, despite defendant's argument search warrant issued in his case was invalid on ground 18 U.S.C.S. § 3601 did not permit Postal Inspectors to serve warrants for investigations involving Federal Express packages, evidence showed defendant used U.S. mail and private carriers to transmit child pornography.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nix, No. 04-13397,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Decided , February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a prior felony conviction did not cause defendant to lose a state law right to possess firearms, it did not fall within the exception under 18 U.S.C.S. § 921(a)(20) because he did not have his civil rights restored under state law; thus, he was properly convicted under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tureaud, No. 03-16552,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Decided , February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for violating 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 1001(a)(2) were affirmed because the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the district court did not error in its deliberate ignorance jury instruction. The sentence was affirmed because the district court did not improperly enhance defendant's sentence.
|
|||||
| Wingard v. Emerald Venture Fla. LLC, No. 05-10473,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Decided , February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prior decision regarding an easement did not preclude owners from litigating the issue of how many lots a dominant parcel could have been subdivided into under the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the prior case decided whether or not campers were allowed to use the easement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
